Re: form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott wrote:
> http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
>
> If form is outward appearance and emptiness
> (sunyata) is the fact that there is nothing
> behind this outward appearance how is it that
> form and emptiness are one-and-the-same ?
It is merely a way to imply that there is no
benefit from digging beneath appearance to
find some ultimate ground of it, the way Jigme
says that emptiness is the essence that
manifests itself as form -- the world as we
know it -- but is more subtle than form.
What Jigme says is wholly contrary to
Buddhist teaching.
The practice of the above equation of
emptiness and form is just to flatly stop at the
mere appeareance, at the raw level of
happenstance, leave it intact right there, not
to mess with it, and not to dig more deeply or
drill down to anything further.
By the way, in normal delusion, we
automatically fit reality (appearance) into our
boxes (concepts, structures, frameworks,
etc.) and lend substance to the results, fill in
the boundaries with essence and substance,
build up an ultimate world (which is purely
thought-up) behind appearance to prop up
appearance, and this is what the scripture
inveighs against.
Of course the scripture is talking about the
regimen of grace, in which we do nothing,
and not the regimen of survival, in which we
do something in order to survive. Grace is
blissful, but has no utility, meaning has no
utility in view of survival -- it does not serve
survival. In order to survive we need to have
a mentational apparatus and use it, but in
grace such an apparatus is deactivated and
put in abeyance, at least temporarily and
episodically. If the mentational apparatus
was permanently destroyed, we should die
quick. It is a matter of balance and
perspective.
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> >http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
>
> > If form is outward appearance and emptiness
> > (sunyata) is the fact that there is nothing
> > behind this outward appearance how is it that
> > form and emptiness are one-and-the-same ?
>
> It is merely a way to imply that there is no
> benefit from digging beneath appearance to
> find some ultimate ground of it, the way Jigme
> says that emptiness is the essence that
> manifests itself as form -- the world as we
> know it -- but is more subtle than form.
> What Jigme says is wholly contrary to
> Buddhist teaching.
Wholly contrary? What's this all about Tangster? Reifying strawmen
again?
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> >http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
>
> > If form is outward appearance and emptiness
> > (sunyata) is the fact that there is nothing
> > behind this outward appearance how is it that
> > form and emptiness are one-and-the-same ?
What's inhered by all phenomena? Flux. A wave of constancy throughout
everything. Omni-simultaneity. Since everything is devoid of a
separate essence, including our very own mental phenomena and hence,
our experiences of the forms we sense, what we're experiencing is a
vast simultaneity (one that spans into an infinity - an vastness that
we can't see or fathom).
So when we sense a form it is just a propagation of many other
phenomena preceding it. It is hence "empty" of some solid essence
(some immediate qualities that reify it as what it is) which lends it
"form." But the whole of all phenomena (or, all of experience) is in
of itself "form" but what lends all Form-ation its essence? Form?
The "form" of an isolated phenomenon is artificially singled out from
its gestalt of everything connected to it as well, so it is again,
empty of any pure self-definition, its function as its own definition
is incomplete. All things, taken alone, are incomplete, or as it is
commonly put, empty of independent existence.
So any take any form and we can observe that it inheres a paradoxical
representation of its own quandary in existence. Its form - its
phenomological state of being - is empty, as are all phenomena. Which
brings us to all creation, which as an inconceivable whole, is yet
another phenomenon, another instant of flux, another form also empty
of independent existence.
And then onto existence. What is its form like? Is it too empty? What
created existence itself?
/l
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> > Peter Olcott:
Lee dear, Your speculation is exactly what the
Heart scripture inveighs against.
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
How so? I see no speculation, just a slight illustration of where
observation and questions take us. There's no answer to the last
question.
The gist, a quick one-off thank you, is recognize analysis & reaction
as being inherently incomplete. There is no answer, only an approach,
which is to adopt observation as a response in of itself.
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
In other words, examine or adopt an open view & be conscious when
falling back from that position.
/l
Hollywood Lee
{delete}@gmail.com[remove] says...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> > http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
> >
> > If form is outward appearance and emptiness
> > (sunyata) is the fact that there is nothing
> > behind this outward appearance how is it that
> > form and emptiness are one-and-the-same ?
>
> It is merely a way to imply that there is no
> benefit from digging beneath appearance to
> find some ultimate ground of it, the way Jigme
> says that emptiness is the essence that
> manifests itself as form -- the world as we
> know it -- but is more subtle than form.
> What Jigme says is wholly contrary to
> Buddhist teaching.
It seems so.
Sextus Empiricus describes the appearances as follows:
"Those who say that "the Sceptics abolish appearances," or phenomena,
seem to me to be unacquainted with the statements of our School. For, as
we said above, we do not overthrow the affective sense-impressions which
induce our assent involuntarily; and these impressions are "the
appearances." And when we question whether the underlying object is such
as it appears, we grant the fact that it appears, and our doubt does not
concern the appearance itself but the account given of that appearance,
-- and that is a different thing from questioning the appearance itself.
For example, honey appears to us to be sweet (and this we grant, for we
perceive sweetness through the senses), but whether it is also sweet in
its essence is for us a matter of doubt, since this is not an appearance
but a judgement regarding the appearance. And even if we do actually
argue against the appearances, we do not propound such arguments with
the intention of abolishing appearances, but by way of pointing out the
rashness of the Dogmatists; for if reason is such a trickster as to all
but snatch away the appearances from under our very eyes, surely we
should view it with suspicion in the case of things non-evident so as
not to display rashness by following it."
Déjà Fu
Hard to deny "appearances" without invoking "essences", nyet?
Wilson
Form is seeing pattern.
No form is seeing no pattern.
Both are perception.
Neither is what is.
--
Wilson
Jigme Dorje
> In article <5Jidnbr2KP4e9ZzQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@supernews.com>, tanghuyen
> {dele...@gmail.com[remove] says...
Interesting, Lee.
Tang Huyen
D�j� Fu wrote:
> Hard to deny "appearances" without invoking
> "essences", nyet?
Some time in the past, you said on these boards:
It only appears to appear.
Sextus Empiricus: �je reste en �quilibre; je suspens
mon jugement�, �I remain in balance; I suspend my
judgement.�
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Wilson wrote:
> Form is seeing pattern.
>
> No form is seeing no pattern.
>
> Both are perception.
>
> Neither is what is.
When one perceives appearance (form) and
stops there, one does not bother about what
is. One only perceives and stops there.
Tang Huyen
Déjà Fu
>
> Déjà Fu wrote:
>
>> Hard to deny "appearances" without invoking
>> "essences", nyet?
>
> Some time in the past, you said on these boards:
> It only appears to appear.
>
> mon jugement”, “I remain in balance; I suspend my
Exactly so, but you have once again missed the point
either willfully or accidently. If you want a lecture
about it, you'll need to sign up for the next class.
Déjà Fu
One's perception is probably one of the most
likely sources of error that One can make.
Ned Ludd
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:UNCdnZ7c1ZROGZzQ...@supernews.com...
"The ear is on fire; sounds are on fire; the nose is on fire;
odors are on fire; the tongue is on fire; tastes are on fire;
the body is on fire; things tangible are on fire; the mind is
on fire; ideas are on fire; mind-consciousness is on fire;
impressions received by the mind are on fire; and whatever
sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates
in dependence on impressions received by the mind, that
also is on fire.
"And with what are these on fire?
"With the fire of passion, say I, with the fire of hatred,
with the fire of infatuation; with birth, old age, death, sorrow,
lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.
"Perceiving this, O priests, the learned and noble disciple
conceives an aversion for the eye, conceives an aversion for
forms, conceives an aversion for eye-consciousness, conceives
an aversion for the impressions received by the eye; and
whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent,
originates in dependence on impressions received by the eye,
for that also he conceives an aversion. Conceives an aversion
for the ear, conceives an aversion for sounds, conceives an
aversion for the nose, conceives an aversion for odors,
conceives an aversion for the tongue, conceives an aversion
for tastes, conceives an aversion for the body, conceives an
aversion for things tangible, conceives an aversion for the mind,
conceives an aversion for ideas, conceives an aversion for
mind-consciousness, conceives an aversion for the impressions
received by the mind; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant,
or indifferent, originates in dependence on impressions received
by the mind, for this also he conceives an aversion. And in
conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and
by the absence of passion he becomes free, and when he is free
he becomes aware that he is free; and he knows that rebirth is
exhausted, that he, has lived the holy life, that he has done
what it behooved him to do, and that he is no more for this
world."
Ned
Déjà Fu
...
> "Perceiving this, O priests, the learned and noble disciple
> conceives an aversion for the eye, conceives an aversion for
> forms, conceives an aversion for eye-consciousness, conceives
> an aversion for the impressions received by the eye; and
> whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent,
> originates in dependence on impressions received by the eye,
> for that also he conceives an aversion. Conceives an aversion
> for the ear, conceives an aversion for sounds, conceives an
> aversion for the nose, conceives an aversion for odors,
> conceives an aversion for the tongue, conceives an aversion
> for tastes, conceives an aversion for the body, conceives an
> aversion for things tangible, conceives an aversion for the mind,
> conceives an aversion for ideas, conceives an aversion for
> mind-consciousness, conceives an aversion for the impressions
> received by the mind; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant,
> or indifferent, originates in dependence on impressions received
> by the mind, for this also he conceives an aversion. And in
> conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and
> by the absence of passion he becomes free, and when he is free
> he becomes aware that he is free; and he knows that rebirth is
> exhausted, that he, has lived the holy life, that he has done
> what it behooved him to do, and that he is no more for this
> world."
He sure isn't.
Tim
> Tang Huyen
Oh. Tang. You that was close. Damn close. I don't mean that like, I
know something you don't about jumping. I mean that in the sense that
we have been jumping our petal bikes over this one jump for the last
couple of weeks and of the both of us you just about slid over the
edge. Close as in, chilly rush of heat and damn. That was close. My
turn.
You must see nothingness as a mere mental principle and since you can
make a distinction from one to other suggests left eye right eye not
seeing the same thing.
Close left eye look focus on mouse. Center it in your view. Now don't
move the mind.
Close left eye and open the right eye at the same time.
Why is it so hard to see it without moving the mind again?
Tim
Peter Olcott
I think that there may be more truth to this than that. I think that the
emptiness part means that we can keep pealing away the onion more and
more layers and get down to nothing at all.
I think it means that the outward appearance is all that there is. This
can be very helpful to know.
Jigme Dorje
- when you experience it it's very simple, very direct. The Heart
Sutra really is so beautiful and really speaks to you from very deep
in your being. Those words are so deeply evocative rather than merely
representational and no definition or analysis can help but be
reductionist. You could say that the experience is the prize, the
analysis, the cast off wrapper.
Jigme Dorje
That's very close - one facet or, as Tim puts it, eyefull.
Take a look at Awaken's post. All conditioned phenomena are observed
to arise within the "field of now" which is not phenomenon but empty.
Yet there is no dividing the two (form and space/ conditioned and
unconditioned) into 2 separate categories. They are really no
different. These are just words and not "it"(sic) either.
niunian
How do you distinguish what you just said with nihilism? or are you a
nihilist?
Jigme Dorje
Are you a niunianist?
Tim
> reductionist. You could say that the experience is the prize, the
> analysis, the cast off wrapper.
You could.
But it was exactly for its lack of words and emotions that it was
painless and that is what I remember most. This is why the exercise of
holding a glass filled with water is closer to the truth than
unlimited potential. In the best written texts I have found, the joke
is nirvana,
Being their name for that state, is that it can be attained, thus it
can be named, but it can not be grasped thus it is fathomless.
Enlightenment playing maybe games when the truth is a leap of faith.
It's like saying "maybe pain is exactly what I am missing." and very
few people can say that without doubt. Yet, it is something to say it
in either case.
Tim
Tim
wrote:
> When one perceives appearance (form) and
> stops there, one does not bother about what
> is. One only perceives and stops there.
>
> Tang Huyen
No.
In yoga you are told about the vase. The perfect meditation on the
vase results in the vase losing all its qualities not the vase, or the
object being meditated upon as suddenly manifesting "appearance".
I know we are saying the same thing Tang. I just think it is funny
when I say No first.
You know, for the students sake.
Cheers.
Tim
Tim
> You know, for the students sake.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim
More sake or I am taking.... Christ's sake bitches!
Tim
It would like having a mantra:
Red.
Green.
White.
Red.
And suddenly Christmas is fucking every where!! I did it! I did it! I
am a Ggoooooodd!.
But not really.... since...
How did you know what to look at
when I said meditate
on the vase.
You zen meditation, buddha sympathizing jack ass. pretending you are
white is not a cause for violence but a show of compassion now get the
fuck out of Appledog's classroom before I punk your ass.
Its like that time they shot a hole in the wall and jumped and landed
in garbage only at least in Luke and Leia et and were concerned it was
the walls that were closing in not just the ceases act of piling shit
up.
Tim
Hollywood Lee
NoS...@OCR4Screen.com says...
Think of it not as the hubristic claim regarding what is, but the much
more humble acceptance regarding the limits of what we can rightfully
talk about - a statement not about essence but about knowledge.
Jigme Dorje
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Tim, I now know who you are. How are things down under and welcome
back!
Where ya bin?
Jigme Dorje
> In article <uLKdnY2bW6huLZzQnZ2dnUVZ5ridn...@giganews.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The old Lee is back!
niunian
Good advice. It's a shame to be fooled by an onion.
Tang Huyen
Déją Fu wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Wilson:
>
> >> Form is seeing pattern.
> >>
> >> No form is seeing no pattern.
> >>
> >> Both are perception.
> >>
> >> Neither is what is.
>
> > When one perceives appearance (form) and
> > stops there, one does not bother about what
> > is. One only perceives and stops there.
>
> One's perception is probably one of the most
> likely sources of error that One can make.
Why bother? As long as one can survive, whether
one's perception is in error or not scarcely makes
any difference.
And as long as one survives, one can also have
privileged moments when one hasn't to actively
fight for survival, and can temporarily relax, take it
easy, be serene, and stop at mere perception,
without elaborating it in any way. Survival requires
that the perceived stuff be elaborated, dug into,
messed with, so that one can cope with it in view
of survival (to avoid a speeding truck, as the
favourite example on these boards reminds us),
but when one hasn't to fight for survival, one can
leisurely stop at raw perception and enjoy it at the
very surface, without any care and concern. Such
non-doing, in part or whole, is calm, peaceful,
serene, and possibly also felicitous and blissful.
The upper limit can be open.
Of course it can only be temporary and episodic,
otherwise one would die quick, but what release!
It puts everything into balance and pespective. It
makes life worthwhile. All for doing nothing. (Of
course one can also choose to carry it all out and
die, but that is ... risky! And the public may not
like it).
To rephrase the above: survival requires
knowledge (the cognitive), but grace dispenses
with it and emphasises feeling (the affective),
such as how one feels about oneself and one's
world. If one feels in peace with oneself and one's
world, much can be forgiven, if it is not already
ideal. And what is not already ideal can be
accepted in calm, peace, serenity, just like that,
"as is". I know, it is easy to say and not so easy to
do (or not do), but that is the direction.
It is funny that emptiness can be interpreted as
openness, and can also be interpreted as stopping
at mere perception, ending everything there and
not bothering further, and both are the same thing.
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott
Outward appearance definitely exists, yet has no core.
Keynes
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
Bankai (zen master of 'the unborn') makes the
point that two persons walking in conversation
against the crowd effortlessly, thoughtlessly avoid
collisions with all the other people. Survival in
traffic isn't consciously cognative per se.
Don't we all drive perfectly well in a thoughtless
daze with our minds elsewhere? This is probably
why nothing much of the trip is memorable.
We just didn't see it.
In the same way, much of life passes by unnoticed.
Jigme Dorje
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which is why the experience of it is in the moment.
And the experience of form being non other than emptiness, emptiness
none other than form.
niunian
<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
What does that mean? Do you take its appearance as the reality or do
you take its void of self nature as the truth? If it's the later, how
is it different from nihilism which denies all existence?
Peter Olcott
If only a single living being actually exists, where is hubris?
This single being could already know everything that can be known.
The Hindu Rig Veda posits that one thing that being might not know is
where this being came from.
Awaken21
> On 12/9/2010 8:24 PM, Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<5Jidnbr2KP4e9ZzQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@supernews.com>, tanghuyen
> > {dele...@gmail.com[remove] says...
>
> >> Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> >>>http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
>
> >>> If form is outward appearance and emptiness
> >>> (sunyata) is the fact that there is nothing
> >>> behind this outward appearance how is it that
> >>> form and emptiness are one-and-the-same ?
>
> >> It is merely a way to imply that there is no
> >> benefit from digging beneath appearance to
> >> find some ultimate ground of it, the way Jigme
> >> says that emptiness is the essence that
> >> manifests itself as form -- the world as we
> >> know it -- but is more subtle than form.
> >> What Jigme says is wholly contrary to
> >> Buddhist teaching.
>
> > It seems so.
>
> > Sextus Empiricus describes the appearances as follows:
>
> > "Those who say that "the Sceptics abolish appearances," or phenomena,
> > seem to me to be unacquainted with the statements of our School. For, as
> > we said above, we do not overthrow the affective sense-impressions which
> > induce our assent involuntarily; and these impressions are "the
> > appearances." And when we question whether the underlying object is such
> > as it appears, we grant the fact that it appears, and our doubt does not
> > concern the appearance itself but the account given of that appearance,
> > -- and that is a different thing from questioning the appearance itself.
> > For example, honey appears to us to be sweet (and this we grant, for we
> > perceive sweetness through the senses), but whether it is also sweet in
> > its essence is for us a matter of doubt, since this is not an appearance
> > but a judgement regarding the appearance. And even if we do actually
> > argue against the appearances, we do not propound such arguments with
> > the intention of abolishing appearances, but by way of pointing out the
> > rashness of the Dogmatists; for if reason is such a trickster as to all
> > but snatch away the appearances from under our very eyes, surely we
> > should view it with suspicion in the case of things non-evident so as
> > not to display rashness by following it."
>
> Hard to deny "appearances" without invoking "essences", nyet?
It's hard to keep others from making the jump without you.
Peter Olcott
Both are true.
niunian
<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
Hm, do you say that just to stay away from nihilism?
Peter Olcott
Your question was like this:
Is a red fire truck red or is it a fire truck?
Lee Rudolph
>Outward appearance definitely exists, yet has no core.
So it's more like a banana (or perhaps a banana peel?)
than an apple (or the skin of an apple?).
Ow-ow-outward appearance,
Gonna be a sudden craze;
Ow-ow-outward appearence,
Gonna be the very next phase.
Yeah, I can dig that.
Leitch Rudolph
niunian
<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
Are you sure you have no problem with your IQ? So far you haven't
shown proper understanding of any of my questions, let alone answering
them.
Peter Olcott
I think it is more like an onion, once all the outer layers are stripped
away, there is nothing at all left.
Peter Olcott
One's own ignorance can only be perceived when contrasted with the
missing knowledge. Because of this one's own ignorance can only appear
as disagreement.
Tim
>
> Outward appearance definitely exists, yet has no core.
Sure it does. The word. The word is boundless. Red is red. I didn't
ask for a fire truck.
The ignorant are those who think there is something they don't know.
Since they believe it. It is so and thus...
C'mon elves, back to work... we need more toys for those who do not
believe they are ignorant.
Santa's Claws.
Keynes
Cookies and milk?
Oh ye of small imagination!
Give me brandy and brie.
Then maybe I'll let you have some.
zenworm
RUN RUDOLPH!
(the turkey escaped and ms claws has an empty pot)
^~
Stephane Guenette
> On 12/9/2010 7:39 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wilson wrote:
>
> >> Form is seeing pattern.
>
> >> No form is seeing no pattern.
>
> >> Both are perception.
>
> >> Neither is what is.
>
> > When one perceives appearance (form) and
> > stops there, one does not bother about what
> > is. One only perceives and stops there.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> I think that there may be more truth to this than that. I think that the
> emptiness part means that we can keep pealing away the onion more and
> more layers and get down to nothing at all.
>
> I think it means that the outward appearance is all that there is. This
> can be very helpful to know.
If the outward appearance is all that there is, that would be atheism
proper.
You will err on either side of the fence.
SG
Peter Olcott
This is not atheism when combined with the idea that only a single
living being actually exists.
Jigme Dorje
Well, fortunately for everyone, it doesn't really mean that anyway.
Peter Olcott
Do you think that you know what it means? Most people get this wring.
Hollywood Lee
NoS...@OCR4Screen.com says...
That was really funny - very clever.
Hollywood Lee
abb1b0...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, blipj...@gmail.com says...
Understood as an ontological claim, perhaps. Understood as an admission
about the limits of our knowledge and nothing more, no.
Jigme Dorje
Look back at my and Awaken's posts.
Awaken21
Baaa! No way I'm missing an 'empty tin can rolling down the main
street of a dead town' opportunity...
First of all let me say that not one word of this is going to get rid
of that nagging feeling that something is wrong in your life. Unless
of course this information somehow leads to more meditation. Which..
well I'm not willing to bet on it.
Having made that critical disclaimer...
Although what Tang says intellectually is true. Just not adding to
what your senses are reporting is part of it.
After a while of cultivated practice the presence, space that is
there, recognized because you are no longer cluttering up the view
does feel like a palpable living presence. But who the hell knows if
it IS a living presence. Or means anything, or much of anything else
about it except the brief, temporary and perhaps not always
representative sample of appearance and form.
A shaky ground to make guesses from at best. In an interesting back
flip form the way we normally perceive our senses we can 'see' or
'feel' it, but that's it. No further information available to our
senses and therefore no further descriptions or conclusions possible
unless you want to start making shit up.
Into that situation saying you know how to define it is simply crazy.
And saying it is simply an intellectual exercize of not adding
intellectual judgments isn't quite the whole story either.
So on a practical level it's just a label for something we have
precious little objective info on and most of what we have is negative
information, what it is not. The intellect believing it is going to
figure out what emptiness 'is' is really such a childish bout of
arrogance. It's just got to be satisfied with figuring out some super
amazing and cool shit.
Truth is you actually see it, you feel it or you don't. But either way
it's not something to add to your list of worries. It's not like all
the mental wrangling in the world is going to change anything critical
one way or the other. If you can't gather the Atlantic ocean with a
wave of your hand don't sweat it. Really, no one is keeping score. One
might even imagine there's a reason for that.
Sorry Kirsten, if I have my way you'll have to dig deeper for OTHER
worries to add to a poor seeker's plate.
--
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."
- G. K. Chesterton
SG
You're saying this being is an outward appearance?? Very strange.
SG
Peter Olcott
That is not what I am saying. The only inner reality is this single
living being, despite appearances to the contrary.
Jigme Dorje
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a poor exposition, but the best I can do.
What's noteworthy about Awaken's words on the subject is that you
could say that there are two aspects to the term emptiness: the
intellectual and the experiential.
Buddhists explain suffering (dukha) as the result of identification
with, or attachment to, conditionally arising phenomena. Buddhists'
philososphical discussion of emptiness centers around the fact that
all conditioned phenomenon are empty of inherent existence, and should
therefore be seen as impermanent, unstable and, in that sense,
illusory, like "bubbles in a stream." The aggregates that we call
"self" are also inherently empty.
The mind will ask: since all conditioned things lack any essential
nature, then does anything truly exist? Here we get drawn into
ontology, and, as this lies outside the scope of the Buddha's
concerns, which were strictly soteriological , the Buddha therefore
remained silent. This silence was maintained to draw seekers away
from the speculative and to focus them instead on the empirical (not
in the philosophical sense, but in the sense actual experience.)
To find our true nature, or what Buddhism calls the "unconditioned" we
are told to look within. Jesus referred to this dimension as the
"kingdom of heaven" (it is telling that he did not refer to it as
"God" but as a kingdom within.) But the Buddha was pointing not to
some thing, some essence, but emptiness of essence. Obviously, a
teaching so seemingly contradictory and unintelligible cannot be
grappled with and understood from the perspective of intellect. What
is beyond name and form can't be rightly explained or described, but
can be experienced.
The Buddha said that identification with form is the cause of
disquiet, suffering, confusion and delusion. The means of seeing
through form is to become aware of the spaces between the words and
thoughts that arise. These conditioned mental phenomenon arise from
and sink back into nothing, silence, emptiness, the unconditioned,
blank.
When you see past the vanity of all that you once imbued with a sense
of self, what is left? Nothing. But this nothing is an expansive
nothing. It is a nothing that contains everything, pervades it, and
is, in fact, none other than it. Forms arise; forms fall, like the
spring buds that blossom into leaves and flowers as the lifeforce
infuses them, then withdraws, leaving only dried up shells that
dissapate into the earth. They spring forth from stillness, and then
return to stillness.
The same is true of ourselves. The life force in us blossoms, dries up
and withdraws from our aggregates of self, leaving just an empty husk.
Life is a beautiful dance of emptiness and form, unconditioned and
conditioned, ferment and stillness. But in our unconsciousness, we
identify ourselves with form, constructing an illusory essence that is
in fact only a construction of our minds.
When we awaken, and many, many have the experience of penetrating the
illusion of form - it is not as unusual or unreachable as some folks
would have us believe - we are suddenly aware that this self is not a
"me" at all. The awareness that observes this "self" knows that this
form is not it. It is not form, it is empty. And it has no story - no
past, no future, no aggregates of form or consciousness. It is only as
zenworm describes it - always now.
Any further attempt to describe can only cause protest and outcry.
"No! It can't be that! It must be this" or "No, Buddhism tells me it
isn't that, so it is really nothing at all; it doesn't really exist!"
But when you experience stillness, there is no contradiction between
stillness and form, the heart sutra's "emptiness is non other than
form; form is none other than emptiness" is recognized, as though
remembered, but not in the sense of a perception through an organ and
object of perception.
So all this verbosity has done is to fall back into meaninglessness.
There were words and yet nothing was said; nothing was said and yet
there were words. The expressions were nothing at all; nothing was
expressed, and the concepts were empty of meaning. Emptiness has
essence; essence, emptiness; and yet there is no essence in emptiness;
no emptiness in essence.
If you've made it this far, then whatever you understood of it, go
back and read between the words and concepts, discarding the content.
Find the gaps, and abide in the stillness.
zenworm
empty stupa
^~
Beerlet Dhiblang
> This is a poor exposition, but the best I can do.
It's quite good. The beauty of these fora is our many voices.
> What's noteworthy about Awaken's words on the subject is that you
> could say that there are two aspects to the term emptiness: the
> intellectual and the experiential.
>
> Buddhists explain suffering (dukha) as the result of identification
> with, or attachment to, conditionally arising phenomena. Buddhists'
> philososphical discussion of emptiness centers around the fact that
> all conditioned phenomenon are empty of inherent existence, and should
> therefore be seen as impermanent, unstable and, in that sense,
> illusory, like "bubbles in a stream." The aggregates that we call
> "self" are also inherently empty.
As they should be, b/c they are only forms to themselves, of
themselves and are just as subject to the vissitudes of form-dom as
any. Just b/c they are ephemera is irrelevant, they are
representations or images of other forms. We react to them as though
they are as real as the actual objects or challenges that confront our
bodies. It's not enough however to concede our senses are but
facsimiles of what exists beyond our bodies - our sensorial wetware -
it's that our minds are designed to adapt the worldly karma of cause
and effect. This is the realm of samsara where many dukhas are
optional.
> The mind will ask: since all conditioned things lack any essential
> nature, then does anything truly exist? Here we get drawn into
> ontology, and, as this lies outside the scope of the Buddha's
> concerns, which were strictly soteriological , the Buddha therefore
> remained silent. This silence was maintained to draw seekers away
> from the speculative and to focus them instead on the empirical (not
> in the philosophical sense, but in the sense actual experience.)
I don't see Gotama's teachings as necessarily precluding
phenomonological analysis from a salvationist goal (soteriology).
While I agree phenomenological analysis allowed to reach a logical
end, winds up in a cosmological cul-de-sac, but that's actually a good
thing. In the vernacular of theists this is one starting point, to see
that theism isn't at risk in pursuit of a non-theistic method (even if
Gotama did aver & refuse to endorse that line of questioning). There
are supporting works to that effect, Nagarjuna's explications (of the
emptiness of emptiness), the Zen emphasis on Mind and so on. These
don't undermine Gotama's goal of achieving release (moksha) from
samsara but rather reinforce it, demonstrating the many entry points
to the course of the dharma (mitigating dukha).
On the point of mind, I feel a more modern vernacular might be of
assistance here, in examining how experience is contiguous with mind,
that mind's additional component is (self-)awareness.
> To find our true nature, or what Buddhism calls the "unconditioned" we
> are told to look within. Jesus referred to this dimension as the
> "kingdom of heaven" (it is telling that he did not refer to it as
> "God" but as a kingdom within.) But the Buddha was pointing not to
> some thing, some essence, but emptiness of essence. Obviously, a
> teaching so seemingly contradictory and unintelligible cannot be
> grappled with and understood from the perspective of intellect. What
> is beyond name and form can't be rightly explained or described, but
> can be experienced.
Yes, however anecdote & discussion serve to get there. Intellect
itself isn't the experience, any more than one might experience
skydiving via intellect, but intellect needn't be looked at as a
fetter. Sometimes the faithless have to tiptoe their way into
surrendering intellect (and other preconceived notions) to something
that requires "letting go."
Writing about it here is a form of self-instruction and training.
> The Buddha said that identification with form is the cause of
> disquiet, suffering, confusion and delusion. The means of seeing
> through form is to become aware of the spaces between the words and
> thoughts that arise. These conditioned mental phenomenon arise from
> and sink back into nothing, silence, emptiness, the unconditioned,
> blank.
But experience - mind - continues. This is where a Vajrayana view of
primordial mind ascribes the metaphor of mind to flux, that all things
are observers that functionally experience phenomena no less, no
better than the (self-)aware mind of an animate conscious creature.
This teeters on the edge, however, of creating a monist primordial
mind that collapsed the wave of existence, reifying nothing into all
creation.
> When you see past the vanity of all that you once imbued with a sense
> of self, what is left? Nothing. But this nothing is an expansive
> nothing. It is a nothing that contains everything, pervades it, and
> is, in fact, none other than it. Forms arise; forms fall, like the
> spring buds that blossom into leaves and flowers as the lifeforce
> infuses them, then withdraws, leaving only dried up shells that
> dissapate into the earth. They spring forth from stillness, and then
> return to stillness.
>
> The same is true of ourselves. The life force in us blossoms, dries up
> and withdraws from our aggregates of self, leaving just an empty husk.
>
> Life is a beautiful dance of emptiness and form, unconditioned and
> conditioned, ferment and stillness. But in our unconsciousness, we
> identify ourselves with form, constructing an illusory essence that is
> in fact only a construction of our minds.
Well, we construct a self-reinforcing system of logia to encounter a
world full of cause and effect. This is a form all to itself, but I
disagree that it is illusory, it is as real inside our minds as any
external phenomenon. Just because it is inaccurate and riven with
abridgements and annotations doesn't mean that we aren't experiencing
something real (based on something physical) between the ears. Fear
and anger are real experiences, but they are visceral reactions, not
fluid responses. I distinguish intentionally here between reaction and
response, that a fuller response be mindful of everyone's fictional
characters & ease away from our reflexive reactions and dance with
these fictional characters who suffer fear and anger.
>
> When we awaken, and many, many have the experience of penetrating the
> illusion of form - it is not as unusual or unreachable as some folks
> would have us believe - we are suddenly aware that this self is not a
> "me" at all. The awareness that observes this "self" knows that this
> form is not it. It is not form, it is empty. And it has no story - no
> past, no future, no aggregates of form or consciousness. It is only as
> zenworm describes it - always now.
>
> Any further attempt to describe can only cause protest and outcry.
> "No! It can't be that! It must be this" or "No, Buddhism tells me it
> isn't that, so it is really nothing at all; it doesn't really exist!"
This is only a conundrum if we allow the paradox to stop us from
bemusement at the thought.
> But when you experience stillness, there is no contradiction between
> stillness and form, the heart sutra's "emptiness is non other than
> form; form is none other than emptiness" is recognized, as though
> remembered, but not in the sense of a perception through an organ and
> object of perception.
>
> So all this verbosity has done is to fall back into meaninglessness.
> There were words and yet nothing was said; nothing was said and yet
> there were words. The expressions were nothing at all; nothing was
> expressed, and the concepts were empty of meaning. Emptiness has
> essence; essence, emptiness; and yet there is no essence in emptiness;
> no emptiness in essence.
A great deal of handwaving goes on in >>these fora<< trying to
explicate this. We can only convey the structure around the
experience, the experience itself is up to each person according to
their own.
The apophatic method of "Who are you?" might be more instructive, but
we still end up trying to synopsize a cognitive map.
> If you've made it this far, then whatever you understood of it, go
> back and read between the words and concepts, discarding the content.
> Find the gaps, and abide in the stillness.
And once the noise subsides, it is possible to experience the
sensation of mind itself. And what is mind but flux? And what is self,
but mind? Ego runs a protection racket, hired by self to extort self
into feeling secure.
/l
Jigme Dorje
Yes. There's a cart before the horse question. The Western
philosophical tradition tends to emphasize the intellectual sphere and
exclude the affective/experiential aspect - breath vs. depth. BF
Skinner's behavoirism as a scientific approach to psychology maintains
that if it cant be verified, it must be discarded.
As you point out, in Buddhism, there is a complementary approach, and
intellect can reinforce practice. "Right view" in the 8-fold path is
reinforced in the suttras that explain that there are certain views
that lead to unbinding, and others that do not. But this is not a
strong position, rather a soft one.
The sutra that discusses hedging your bets, for instance, is a case in
point. It conveys that it is alright to act as though a certain
position were true (and possibly, it is) but not to the extent of
becoming identified with that position. The opposite position (and
positions are typically polar) may be less conducive to unbinding, so
it is disregarded. Suspending disbelief in the position put forth is
one method of getting past it so as not to get hung up on and attached
to it and turn it into a hindrance.
> On the point of mind, I feel a more modern vernacular might be of
> assistance here, in examining how experience is contiguous with mind,
> that mind's additional component is (self-)awareness.
I'm not sure about this. You may have a better personal understanding
of this than I. My sense of it, from my own experience of observing
the mind, is that awareness is apart from mind. You seem to be saying
that perhaps it works through mind, which may be the case but is not
something I am in a position to conjecture about.
> > To find our true nature, or what Buddhism calls the "unconditioned" we
> > are told to look within. Jesus referred to this dimension as the
> > "kingdom of heaven" (it is telling that he did not refer to it as
> > "God" but as a kingdom within.) But the Buddha was pointing not to
> > some thing, some essence, but emptiness of essence. Obviously, a
> > teaching so seemingly contradictory and unintelligible cannot be
> > grappled with and understood from the perspective of intellect. What
> > is beyond name and form can't be rightly explained or described, but
> > can be experienced.
>
> Yes, however anecdote & discussion serve to get there. Intellect
> itself isn't the experience, any more than one might experience
> skydiving via intellect, but intellect needn't be looked at as a
> fetter. Sometimes the faithless have to tiptoe their way into
> surrendering intellect (and other preconceived notions) to something
> that requires "letting go."
> Writing about it here is a form of self-instruction and training.
Yes, and I would reassure my dear friend Tang, who my heart always
goes out to, that there is no need to feel threatened about
discussions of our personal experiences and perceptions, and exhorting
one another to practice. No need to put into practice H. L. Mencken's
famous saying: "puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
is having a good time."
For my other friend Peter, I would extend my admiration for the fact
that he has taken logic to its upmost utility and is now mixing it
with empiricism, establishing that balance that is usually so hard
won. Many have gone on to deepen our practice after extensive study
and discussion of sutra. Others have approached it the other way,
absorbing sutra during the course of practice. Who knows which way
works best? For me, it was suffering that brought me to the point of
seeing that all is vanity. Unfortunately, suffering remains the
greatest motivator for most of the human race.
> > The Buddha said that identification with form is the cause of
> > disquiet, suffering, confusion and delusion. The means of seeing
> > through form is to become aware of the spaces between the words and
> > thoughts that arise. These conditioned mental phenomenon arise from
> > and sink back into nothing, silence, emptiness, the unconditioned,
> > blank.
>
> But experience - mind - continues. This is where a Vajrayana view of
> primordial mind ascribes the metaphor of mind to flux, that all things
> are observers that functionally experience phenomena no less, no
> better than the (self-)aware mind of an animate conscious creature.
> This teeters on the edge, however, of creating a monist primordial
> mind that collapsed the wave of existence, reifying nothing into all
> creation.
I will echo Awaken's comments that it feels this way. Getting past
individual identification, there is a sense of (poorly explained)
being awareness itself.
Peter is fond of saying that this is one being that we are alll part
of. And that is one way of envisioning it. Similarly, the earth can
be seen as a giant organism composed of all its parts which includes
the human race. Also, human intelligence can be seen as part of a
larger flow of intelligence that is beyond and expresses itself
through the human mind.
The important caveat is that I make no such claims. I simply state
that there is a sense of no longer being limited to the human form, no
longer being as much subject to the limitations of our form. All
these perceptions are difficult to put into name and form, and in
their expression, there is vast room for misinterpretation.
This is a conversation among people with similar frames of reference,
which is not to imply that there is anything superior about those who
relate or inferior about those who do not, or, conversely, that we who
exchange these expressions are superior or inferior either. It only
means that our own perceptions or explanations of experience may
differ according to our personal frames of reference and that, rather
than draw a line in the sand between "right" and "wrong," it is
possible to allow for differing frames of reference.
In effect, I have again said little to nothing, echoing your similar
meanderings!
Interesting! I paused quite a while after typing out the word
"illusory." Didn't mean to open a can of worms, which I see I didn't,
given your thoughtful response.
When you say that fear and anger are real experiences, but they are
visceral reactions, not fluid responses. I believe you mean that they
are conditioned responses, which have been wired into our sensory
mechanisms to the point that we no longer realize that they are
judgments, and not pure sensory experiences. Wired judgements.
The amazing thing about the practice of mindfulness is that awareness
can actually observe these responses at work. The mind that
identifies with these arising phenomena will ordinarily proliferate,
associating the sensation of fear with a concept like "they're evil
and out to get me" or "I am too stupid or unknowledgable and not up to
the task," etc. What we have here is a visceral perception that
persists and poisons of obscures awareness.
One of the great contributions of Tolle here is to point to our
identification with past visceral perceptions and say "past is
nonexistent." In one fell swoop the entire edifice of a constructed,
conditioned visceral perception and our identification with it are
thereby swept away. Just bring your attention to the now, he says, by
which he means, observe the neural connections being formed and in
observing them you will see that they are mere constructions. This
will return you to unfettered awareness.
> > When we awaken, and many, many have the experience of penetrating the
> > illusion of form - it is not as unusual or unreachable as some folks
> > would have us believe - we are suddenly aware that this self is not a
> > "me" at all. The awareness that observes this "self" knows that this
> > form is not it. It is not form, it is empty. And it has no story - no
> > past, no future, no aggregates of form or consciousness. It is only as
> > zenworm describes it - always now.
>
> > Any further attempt to describe can only cause protest and outcry.
> > "No! It can't be that! It must be this" or "No, Buddhism tells me it
> > isn't that, so it is really nothing at all; it doesn't really exist!"
>
> This is only a conundrum if we allow the paradox to stop us from
> bemusement at the thought.
OK, thought is not the enemy. It is a tool through which awareness
works. The tendency to identify with form, including thought forms is
something to observe.
> > But when you experience stillness, there is no contradiction between
> > stillness and form, the heart sutra's "emptiness is non other than
> > form; form is none other than emptiness" is recognized, as though
> > remembered, but not in the sense of a perception through an organ and
> > object of perception.
>
> > So all this verbosity has done is to fall back into meaninglessness.
> > There were words and yet nothing was said; nothing was said and yet
> > there were words. The expressions were nothing at all; nothing was
> > expressed, and the concepts were empty of meaning. Emptiness has
> > essence; essence, emptiness; and yet there is no essence in emptiness;
> > no emptiness in essence.
>
> A great deal of handwaving goes on in >>these fora<< trying to
> explicate this. We can only convey the structure around the
> experience, the experience itself is up to each person according to
> their own.
>
> The apophatic method of "Who are you?" might be more instructive, but
> we still end up trying to synopsize a cognitive map.
Whatever works for you, I suppose. I was given the kung an "Who am I"
or "What is this" in Korean ("I moko") but it only took me further
from the moment. I suppose persistance over many years was required
to make it work for me. But for me the observation of arising
phenomenon without attaching is more organic.
> > If you've made it this far, then whatever you understood of it, go
> > back and read between the words and concepts, discarding the content.
> > Find the gaps, and abide in the stillness.
>
> And once the noise subsides, it is possible to experience the
> sensation of mind itself. And what is mind but flux? And what is self,
> but mind? Ego runs a protection racket, hired by self to extort self
> into feeling secure.
Beautifully said.
SG
This can be very helpful to know." -- Peter (he says what he means,
and means what he says)
SG
Beerlet Dhiblang
These are difficult semantics & I'm not a philosopher, so I lack a
formal framework to help us along in clarifying where awareness and
mind are separate or conjoined. I consider conscious volition to
synonymous with awareness, of the nature of ordinary mind as well as
beginners mind, original mind, primordial mind and so on. It's more
than, say, the raw non-conscious experience of reptiles.
> This is a conversation among people with similar frames of reference,
> which is not to imply that there is anything superior about those who
> relate or inferior about those who do not, or, conversely, that we who
> exchange these expressions are superior or inferior either. It only
> means that our own perceptions or explanations of experience may
> differ according to our personal frames of reference and that, rather
> than draw a line in the sand between "right" and "wrong," it is
> possible to allow for differing frames of reference.
Indeed, the empty field of phenomena - be they intrinsic to
consciousness or extrinsic to self - can all be flattened to be all
gestalt. This is not a nihilism however, to relegate consciousness as
nothing more than any other phenomenon, volition or awareness are real
processes with emergent supra-properties. But a fully realized Buddha
mind is just as penned in by its utimately physical substrate as that
of the votary of any creed, the field of phenomena is as indifferent
as air. It is only in the social, personal, experiential, existential
and intellectual realm that the dharma has any bearing.
Just as the experience of time dilation is available to an atomic
clock the same as any cosmonaut, the joy of experience is available to
anyone regardless of whatever cosmology or soteriology they were born
into or adopted. The problem is that the social framework of religion
often becomes a burden to those fearing the rabble in the back pews
(where the queers, atheists and wild ones are). The faux liberation of
intellectual vainglory (self actualization / self discovery) becomes
an excersize in individualism, all ego, all self.
> When you say that fear and anger are real experiences, but they are
> visceral reactions, not fluid responses. I believe you mean that they
> are conditioned responses, which have been wired into our sensory
> mechanisms to the point that we no longer realize that they are
> judgments, and not pure sensory experiences. Wired judgements.
Yes. But reactions - in a physicalist sense - is a more equal-and-
opposite force kind of Newtonian motion, deterministic. In a
reflective response the option arises for a non-Euclidian motion, even
potential for some spontaneous abandonment of ego and in surrender
find some modicum of freedom from conditioned behaviors (as in the
arguably impossible expression of free will).
> The amazing thing about the practice of mindfulness is that awareness
> can actually observe these responses at work.
An observer mind narrating the actor in real time....
> One of the great contributions of Tolle here is to point to our
> identification with past visceral perceptions and say "past is
> nonexistent."
Eeeks. Yeh, but then, it isn't because the cusp of now is fully real.
In a trite example, the bullet leaves the gun chamber and it will
almost spontaneously inflict a wound on a victim's body.
Emotional pain isn't just manifest from ephmeral memories, the
memories and conditioned aversions are as real as the abusive language
that created them.
> In one fell swoop the entire edifice of a constructed,
> conditioned visceral perception and our identification with it are
> thereby swept away. Just bring your attention to the now, he says, by
> which he means, observe the neural connections being formed and in
> observing them you will see that they are mere constructions. This
> will return you to unfettered awareness.
So long as there is time and space to find such freedom it can be
achieved, but drawing a line across the sand doesn't make the beach
behind it go away. Getting past a milestone might be a circular ritual
for a while - getting truly beyond it might require surrendering to
Yogi's fork in the road, even if we don't know where we're going and
even if we might not get there.
/l
zenworm
ritual begins and ends right here
now
still
^~
zenworm
equanimity is empty as is equanimity
^~
Jigme Dorje
Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
(perception), sankhara (formation), and vinnaṇa (consciousness.)
While forms are perceived via the sense faculties, the senses can't
think, or mull over ideas, choose possible actions and arrive at
conclusions. Thoughts and ideas belong to the faculty of the mind,
consciousness. Pursuant to sensation, what actually experiences the
ensuing feelings of satisfaction or misery is consciousness.
In mindfulness practice, you investigate your thoughts and
psychophysical aggregates and see that there is no self in them. But
who is this "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions,
formations and consciousness? This is what I refer to as awareness.
> > This is a conversation among people with similar frames of reference,
> > which is not to imply that there is anything superior about those who
> > relate or inferior about those who do not, or, conversely, that we who
> > exchange these expressions are superior or inferior either. It only
> > means that our own perceptions or explanations of experience may
> > differ according to our personal frames of reference and that, rather
> > than draw a line in the sand between "right" and "wrong," it is
> > possible to allow for differing frames of reference.
>
> Indeed, the empty field of phenomena - be they intrinsic to
> consciousness or extrinsic to self - can all be flattened to be all
> gestalt. This is not a nihilism however, to relegate consciousness as
> nothing more than any other phenomenon, volition or awareness are real
> processes with emergent supra-properties. But a fully realized Buddha
> mind is just as penned in by its utimately physical substrate as that
> of the votary of any creed, the field of phenomena is as indifferent
> as air. It is only in the social, personal, experiential, existential
> and intellectual realm that the dharma has any bearing.
Only? There is form, and there is the formless. A Buddha inhabits the
formless realms. Does this mean that the realm of form is abolished?
No, only that it is irrelevent. Think of nature, the blooming and
dying of the leaves of the trees as the life force springs forth and
withdraws. This is the ethereal nature of plants. It is the same with
human beings. There are births and deaths, but life goes on regardless
of the coming and going of all these "selves," which the Buddha tells
us are not self.
> Just as the experience of time dilation is available to an atomic
> clock the same as any cosmonaut, the joy of experience is available to
> anyone regardless of whatever cosmology or soteriology they were born
> into or adopted.
Yes.
> The problem is that the social framework of religion
> often becomes a burden to those fearing the rabble in the back pews
> (where the queers, atheists and wild ones are). The faux liberation of
> intellectual vainglory (self actualization / self discovery) becomes
> an excersize in individualism, all ego, all self.
The worship of the self disguised as spirituality. The acknowledgment
of individuality is meaningless in the absence of the acknowledgment
of commonality, and vice versa.
By the way, has it ever struck you as ironic that the religions of
personal release from - Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Zen
originate in the collective societies of the East, whereas the
religions of collective conformity originate in the individualistic
West?
> > When you say that fear and anger are real experiences, but they are
> > visceral reactions, not fluid responses. I believe you mean that they
> > are conditioned responses, which have been wired into our sensory
> > mechanisms to the point that we no longer realize that they are
> > judgments, and not pure sensory experiences. Wired judgements.
>
> Yes. But reactions - in a physicalist sense - is a more equal-and-
> opposite force kind of Newtonian motion, deterministic. In a
> reflective response the option arises for a non-Euclidian motion, even
> potential for some spontaneous abandonment of ego and in surrender
> find some modicum of freedom from conditioned behaviors (as in the
> arguably impossible expression of free will).
>
> > The amazing thing about the practice of mindfulness is that awareness
> > can actually observe these responses at work.
>
> An observer mind narrating the actor in real time....
Who is the observer, and who is the actor?
And is the observer really narrating, or only silently observing as
the narrator creates the story of self?
> > One of the great contributions of Tolle here is to point to our
> > identification with past visceral perceptions and say "past is
> > nonexistent."
>
> Eeeks. Yeh, but then, it isn't because the cusp of now is fully real.
> In a trite example, the bullet leaves the gun chamber and it will
> almost spontaneously inflict a wound on a victim's body.
I don't follow.
> Emotional pain isn't just manifest from ephmeral memories, the
> memories and conditioned aversions are as real as the abusive language
> that created them.
The question is not whether they are real or not in the realm of
experience, but whether they draw awareness from itself.
> > In one fell swoop the entire edifice of a constructed,
> > conditioned visceral perception and our identification with it are
> > thereby swept away. Just bring your attention to the now, he says, by
> > which he means, observe the neural connections being formed and in
> > observing them you will see that they are mere constructions. This
> > will return you to unfettered awareness.
>
> So long as there is time and space to find such freedom it can be
> achieved, but drawing a line across the sand doesn't make the beach
> behind it go away. Getting past a milestone might be a circular ritual
> for a while - getting truly beyond it might require surrendering to
> Yogi's fork in the road, even if we don't know where we're going and
> even if we might not get there.
But we are there, or here, rather. There is nothing to get past or get
over. There is only the thought of something to get past or get over.
Whatever happens is now unfolding. But we tend to look at it as an
obstacle, something to put behind us, to use to get to the future, the
future that never comes, because, when it does, it is just experienced
as another obstacle to get past. In this way, the human being
continuously and indefinately defers the experience of now and, in not
just surrendering to it, turns it into an obstacle to some imagined
destination. At the time of his death, he may look back and reflect
that he never really lived at all, but simply postponed life
indefinately into the future.
Whatever we are looking for, we need look no further. There is no door
on which to knock. It's time.
Peter Olcott
When the single living being is looking inside what appears to be other
beings, this being sees nothing at their core but himself, possibly not
even as much as this.
zenworm
>
> But we are there, or here, rather. There is nothing to get past or get
> over. There is only the thought of something to get past or get over.
>
> Whatever happens is now unfolding. But we tend to look at it as an
> obstacle, something to put behind us, to use to get to the future, the
> future that never comes, because, when it does, it is just experienced
> as another obstacle to get past. In this way, the human being
> continuously and indefinately defers the experience of now and, in not
> just surrendering to it, turns it into an obstacle to some imagined
> destination. At the time of his death, he may look back and reflect
> that he never really lived at all, but simply postponed life
> indefinately into the future.
>
> Whatever we are looking for, we need look no further. There is no door
> on which to knock. It's time.
already
always
NOW
^~
Allen Barker
> On Dec 12, 6:23 pm, Beerlet Dhiblang<dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> formal framework to help us along in clarifying where awareness and
>> mind are separate or conjoined. I consider conscious volition to
>> synonymous with awareness, of the nature of ordinary mind as well as
>> beginners mind, original mind, primordial mind and so on. It's more
>> than, say, the raw non-conscious experience of reptiles.
>
> Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
> Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
> factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
> (perception), sankhara (formation), and vinnaṇa (consciousness.)
>
> While forms are perceived via the sense faculties, the senses can't
> think, or mull over ideas, choose possible actions and arrive at
> conclusions. Thoughts and ideas belong to the faculty of the mind,
> consciousness.
Check out the figure on the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar%C5%9Ba
There's a similar diagram on the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana
Peter Olcott
> of. And that is one way of envisioning it.
Yet when I say this I am not merely saying this that is one way of
looking at it. What I am meaning is this is the ultimate ground of being
of literal truth. What appears to be multiple beings is really one
single being playing hide-and-seek with himself.
This is specified in Advaida of Hinduism the Diamond sutra:
the World-honored One declares that notions of ... separate
individuality, as really existing, are erroneous - these terms are
merely figures of speech.
And the mystical esoteric aspects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I accept the truth of this for two reasons:
(1) If every religion is saying the same thing it would seem plausible
that this same thing that they are saying might actually be true.
(2) I have directly experienced this in numerous different ways. I am
sufficiently convinced that this must be the Satori experience itself
because of everything that can possibly be, I can not even imagine an
experience of greater significance.
I don't think that a category of an experience of greater significance
can possibly exist even if one performs a categorically exhaustive
complete enumeration of every possibly conceivable experience.
>> characters& ease away from our reflexive reactions and dance with
--
100% Accurate Display Screen OCR
http://www.OCR4Screen.com
Jigme Dorje
wrote:
> On 12/12/2010 11:39 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 6:23 pm, Beerlet Dhiblang<dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> These are difficult semantics& I'm not a philosopher, so I lack a
> >> formal framework to help us along in clarifying where awareness and
> >> mind are separate or conjoined. I consider conscious volition to
> >> synonymous with awareness, of the nature of ordinary mind as well as
> >> beginners mind, original mind, primordial mind and so on. It's more
> >> than, say, the raw non-conscious experience of reptiles.
>
> > Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
> > Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
> > factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
> > (perception), sankhara (formation), and vinnaṇa (consciousness.)
>
> > While forms are perceived via the sense faculties, the senses can't
> > think, or mull over ideas, choose possible actions and arrive at
> > conclusions. Thoughts and ideas belong to the faculty of the mind,
> > consciousness.
>
>
> There's a similar diagram on the pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana
>
>
>
> > Pursuant to sensation, what actually experiences the
> > ensuing feelings of satisfaction or misery is consciousness.
>
> > In mindfulness practice, you investigate your thoughts and
> > psychophysical aggregates and see that there is no self in them. But
> > who is this "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Allen, as always, you are helpful and on the mark with your valued
contribtutions.
Keynes, as well, provided a gem of a link on Bankei:
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/bankei_zen_master.html
Consciousness is an aggragate of self, and awareness is another
matter. Read what the article has to say with Bankei's experience of
awareness. It might stir up comments or debate, but language can be a
quicksand. It is profound and experiential:
"Bankei repeatedly drove home the profound if paradoxical point that
no sentient being, in their Absolute Identity as Buddha-Nature (Skt.:
Buddhata, Jap.: Bussho), has ever really “been born.” That is to say,
no one has actually ever gotten entangled in phenomena, bodies, minds,
experiences, relationships, etc. We are always already none other than
the One that is also Many; our real Nature is the undefined,
unstructured, infinite Openness-Emptiness (Skt.: Shûnyatâ) of Pure
Awareness that is also simultaneously appearing as all phenomena. We
are Formlessness associated with and permeating forms, but never
“born” or caught up as these forms."
:
Beerlet Dhiblang
> In mindfulness practice, you investigate your thoughts and
> psychophysical aggregates and see that there is no self in them. But
> who is this "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions,
> formations and consciousness? This is what I refer to as awareness.
My view is that of a westerner, borrowing lightly from neurosci &
psych. A common vernacular is needed here to describe these things, in
some way that can be conveyed in western/modern terms. I don't see
that much divergence from B'ist jargon vs. that of the western mind
sciences. However I'm not well versed enough in either discipline to
bridge what minor gaps exist.
> > Indeed, the empty field of phenomena - be they intrinsic to
> > consciousness or extrinsic to self - can all be flattened to be all
> > gestalt. This is not a nihilism however, to relegate consciousness as
> > nothing more than any other phenomenon, volition or awareness are real
> > processes with emergent supra-properties. But a fully realized Buddha
> > mind is just as penned in by its utimately physical substrate as that
> > of the votary of any creed, the field of phenomena is as indifferent
> > as air. It is only in the social, personal, experiential, existential
> > and intellectual realm that the dharma has any bearing.
>
> Only?
Yes.... :-)
> There is form, and there is the formless.
And both may exist without any Buddhas to observe them...
> A Buddha inhabits the formless realms.
Or so his senses tell him. Where is a Buddha's awareness without his
body, his brain? What conveyance is he riding in, what vehicle is it
that allows him to sense such an experience like a formless realm?
> Does this mean that the realm of form is abolished?
> No, only that it is irrelevent. Think of nature, the blooming and
> dying of the leaves of the trees as the life force springs forth and
> withdraws. This is the ethereal nature of plants. It is the same with
> human beings. There are births and deaths, but life goes on regardless
> of the coming and going of all these "selves," which the Buddha tells
> us are not self.
Does "nature" suffer from the problem of "self?" Of course not. A
flower may experience some things but without "mind" it remains
unaware of its experiences.
How then are the arising of thoughts and sensations any more
phenomonologically exceptional than any other cycle of nature? And why
should a Buddha be so concerned with this exceptionalism? His
experiences are as dependent upon a physicalist chain of events as any
extrinsic, non-sentient, phenomenon. It is by toke of sentience alone
that Buddhists lay claim to some phenomonological uniqueness against
the broad gestalt of all phenomenon & experience. Sentience does not
entitle a Buddha to lay claim to his experience being truly,
irrefutably formless.
Are they *really* formless realms, then? Are they non-formless? I'm
certain I'll offend some Buddhist sensibilities but there are *NO*
thoughts without a thinker, and no formless experiences without a
form.
My understanding is that Buddhism is riven with debates over this very
quandary, how to avoid making Buddhalotry of the dharma (e.g., the
panentheist proposition of a primordial mind) while avoiding the
nihilism of naive materialism (i.e., sentience is absolutely leveled
as no better than any other physical process).
We can't propose that there is an unattainable experience that can
only be experienced by Buddhas, unless we want Buddhas to have demigod
status, bringing us back to Buddhalotry. The experience *is*
attainable by a - any - sentient, living person, no magical powers
required ( beginning to sound like Dharmatroll here ) .
Well, either that or the experience which can be experienced is not
the true experience? Same thing, only different. Without a physical
person there is no Buddha. A Buddha needs a physical framework, an
organic machine, his non-dual mind-body continuum, underpinning his
penultimate attainments and final achievement of Buddhahood
(nibbana).
No matter how non-dual the experience may seem there is an unavoidable
dualism inherent in a sentient creature having such an experience.
/l
Peter Olcott
There is seeing only with no one that sees and nothing that is seen.
Beerlet Dhiblang
Seems to me there's a risk in this position in that it invites putting
formlessness up on a higher pedestal than emptiness or form, whereby
the the quandary of emptiness wants to be alleviated by claiming
access to formlessness. "Pure awareness" invites first a semantic -
and perhaps cultural/linguistic - quibble in that "awareness" suggests
consciousness. "Experience" OTOH does not require consciousness (once
again, an atomic clock experiences time dilation but is not aware of
it). Formlessness, in order to be *observed and recounted* requires an
existentially-pinned sentient being to experience it & recount it,
making its experience thereupon dependent upon physically-based - and
inherently dual - memories and experiences.
Is this a false criticism, that Buddhists suffer a bit of hubris
trying to resolve some paradoxes via some quaint syllogisms (along the
lines of all phenomena are formless, all people are phenomonological,
all experiences of formlessness are formless)?
I'm not sure where to pinpoint the fallacy (if there is one), but
perhaps it hinges on the quandary of self-existence. That is, by
declaring a "one that is many" is a proposition that all nodes of
awareness are fungible (I'm not the English language I speak as my
native tongue, but my "self" could have been instead be the product of
an upbringing in China) and that this very observation is dissociative
*and* unresolvable. Does this lead to an unconscious need to resolve
the ego-threatening experience of existential nihilism?
Without being able to claim a gestalt formlessness we are left with an
unsolvable dual-yet-not-dual paradox of personal identity and with it
formful-yet-formless awareness and experience. But does that put the
lie to one claim of Buddhahood if "true" formlessness can both be
experienced and can never be experienced? Or is it true that even for
those quintessential Buddhas, that even *they* can't experience such a
thing, given that their own experience is riven with dependencies on
awareness and experience? By lofting that ability to some realm of
Buddhahood, even if it is paradoxical, how is this not a leap of faith
that depends on a bit of myth-making with a tinge of Buddhalotry?
/l
SG
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
news:VcCdnXS6W9koNpjQ...@giganews.com...
>>> That is not what I am saying. The only inner reality is this single
>>> living being, despite appearances to the contrary.
>>
>> "I think it means that the outward appearance is all that there is.
>> This can be very helpful to know." -- Peter (he says what he means,
>> and means what he says)
>>
> When the single living being is looking inside what appears to be other
> beings, this being sees nothing at their core but himself, possibly not
> even as much as this.
Okay. As long as you noticed that you've said two different things, carry
on.
I'm not far off with the way you expressed it the second time, but, again, I
cannot, in good conscience, consider a Big Self unless it is described as
"without conditions". Any 'Self' that I can think up would have brains and
eyes and stuff...
SG
Beerlet Dhiblang
Heh.
Keynes
Is this how to drop body and mind?
Peter Olcott
The big self exists as if it was the Christian Holy Spirit or the Zen
Buddhist Tao. The individual self can at times (possibly prolonged
times) merge with the big self, and become one-and-the-same as the big
self.
The Buddhist way of looking at this is that the individual self does not
really exist. I am not sure if this is 100% perfectly literally true, or
to some degree a figurative skillful means.
There are some aspects of me that are neither conditioned nor learned.
These aspects do not depend upon my memories or my experiences. These
aspects seem to be inherently me.
Jigme Dorje
> On Dec 12, 11:39 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In mindfulness practice, you investigate your thoughts and
> > psychophysical aggregates and see that there is no self in them. But
> > who is this "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions,
> > formations and consciousness? This is what I refer to as awareness.
>
> My view is that of a westerner, borrowing lightly from neurosci &
> psych. A common vernacular is needed here to describe these things, in
> some way that can be conveyed in western/modern terms. I don't see
> that much divergence from B'ist jargon vs. that of the western mind
> sciences. However I'm not well versed enough in either discipline to
> bridge what minor gaps exist.
Buddhism has its own jargon. And there comes a point where jargon
becomes irrelevant anyway.
> > > Indeed, the empty field of phenomena - be they intrinsic to
> > > consciousness or extrinsic to self - can all be flattened to be all
> > > gestalt. This is not a nihilism however, to relegate consciousness as
> > > nothing more than any other phenomenon, volition or awareness are real
> > > processes with emergent supra-properties. But a fully realized Buddha
> > > mind is just as penned in by its utimately physical substrate as that
> > > of the votary of any creed, the field of phenomena is as indifferent
> > > as air. It is only in the social, personal, experiential, existential
> > > and intellectual realm that the dharma has any bearing.
>
> > Only?
>
> Yes.... :-)
>
> > There is form, and there is the formless.
>
> And both may exist without any Buddhas to observe them...
Yes, maybe, but I do not consider it necessary to develop a position
about this.
> > A Buddha inhabits the formless realms.
>
> Or so his senses tell him. Where is a Buddha's awareness without his
> body, his brain? What conveyance is he riding in, what vehicle is it
> that allows him to sense such an experience like a formless realm?
You seem to be attempting to coax me into declaring an ontological
position. I don't make claims, and I don't do positions. I can only
tell you what my own experience is. But to do so, I need to use words
outside the traditional Buddhist lexicon because this is something not
limited by form
> > Does this mean that the realm of form is abolished?
> > No, only that it is irrelevent. Think of nature, the blooming and
> > dying of the leaves of the trees as the life force springs forth and
> > withdraws. This is the ethereal nature of plants. It is the same with
> > human beings. There are births and deaths, but life goes on regardless
> > of the coming and going of all these "selves," which the Buddha tells
> > us are not self.
>
> Does "nature" suffer from the problem of "self?" Of course not. A
> flower may experience some things but without "mind" it remains
> unaware of its experiences.
That is to say that it falls below thought, whereas Buddhas rise above
it.
However it is deeply rooted in nature, and we are not as much so,
being more rooted in thought.
> How then are the arising of thoughts and sensations any more
> phenomonologically exceptional than any other cycle of nature? And why
> should a Buddha be so concerned with this exceptionalism? His
> experiences are as dependent upon a physicalist chain of events as any
> extrinsic, non-sentient, phenomenon. It is by toke of sentience alone
> that Buddhists lay claim to some phenomonological uniqueness against
> the broad gestalt of all phenomenon & experience. Sentience does not
> entitle a Buddha to lay claim to his experience being truly,
> irrefutably formless.
It is because of our intellect, rather than our sentience, that we are
able to experience nature in a conscious way. Some express it as
awareness becoming conscious of itself.
> Are they *really* formless realms, then? Are they non-formless? I'm
> certain I'll offend some Buddhist sensibilities but there are *NO*
> thoughts without a thinker, and no formless experiences without a
> form.
Emptiness is none other than form; form is none other than emptiness.
> My understanding is that Buddhism is riven with debates over this very
> quandary, how to avoid making Buddhalotry of the dharma (e.g., the
> panentheist proposition of a primordial mind) while avoiding the
> nihilism of naive materialism (i.e., sentience is absolutely leveled
> as no better than any other physical process).
These are called philosophical extremes, and they only exist as a
philosophical problem for the philosophically inclined. This apparant
conundrum is resolved (really) with the experience of emptiness.
> We can't propose that there is an unattainable experience that can
> only be experienced by Buddhas, unless we want Buddhas to have demigod
> status, bringing us back to Buddhalotry. The experience *is*
> attainable by a - any - sentient, living person, no magical powers
> required ( beginning to sound like Dharmatroll here ) .
Yes, but one adjustment: remove the oxymoronic term "unattainable"
from the realm of experience; by definition an unattainable object
cannot be obtained. But isn't this is exactly what we do when we
posit experience as a goal - postpone it to the indefinite future,
making it unattainable? Since no object can ever be obtained and held,
due to its impermanence, we are effectively denying ourselves what is
right here.
> Well, either that or the experience which can be experienced is not
> the true experience? Same thing, only different. Without a physical
> person there is no Buddha. A Buddha needs a physical framework, an
> organic machine, his non-dual mind-body continuum, underpinning his
> penultimate attainments and final achievement of Buddhahood
> (nibbana).
Yes, of course. So the realm of Buddhahood, ie. unbinding, is none
other than here and now. A Buddha has a form aspect, but is not
limited by his form.
> No matter how non-dual the experience may seem there is an unavoidable
> dualism inherent in a sentient creature having such an experience.
No, because of the parity of emtiness and form, there is just a
posited duality. It all resolves in awareness.
Beerlet Dhiblang
Thanks. Must reread before responding. See also other post on same
thread. Not meant to box either of us into positions, more of a path
of inquiry.
/l
Jigme Dorje
Formlessness is no other than emptiness. There are only form and no
form, or emptiness.
"Pure awareness" invites first a semantic -
> and perhaps cultural/linguistic - quibble in that "awareness" suggests
> consciousness. "Experience" OTOH does not require consciousness
That is not how I experience it. Awareness is a word, just a word. I
use it only as a convention. It is expansive, unlimited,
unconditioned, and whether I call it "emptiness," "formlessness,"
"awareness," or "the unconditioned," it is not something.
Examples suck because there are flaws in every one of them. This one
is far from perfect, but here goes: mind is like holding a mirror to a
mirror. What we see is a mirror mirrored in a mirror mirrored in a
mirror ad infinitim. This is "proliferation." A thought arises. Our
mind observes the thought and comments on it, multipying it into other
thoughts, ad infinitim. We become lost in an internal universe, a hall
of mirrors, until we are are no longer aware of the real world.
Mindfulness is putting down the mirror. When a thought arises, we
notice it and alow it to arise, and if a voice in the head arises, we
see that this is only the mirror, and we put it down.
The voice in the head falls into the realm of consciousness in
Buddhist analysis. But what is it that experiences consciousness, that
observes it arising?
(once
> again, an atomic clock experiences time dilation but is not aware of
> it). Formlessness, in order to be *observed and recounted* requires an
> existentially-pinned sentient being to experience it & recount it,
> making its experience thereupon dependent upon physically-based - and
> inherently dual - memories and experiences.
Yes, sentient and conscious beings.
> Is this a false criticism, that Buddhists suffer a bit of hubris
> trying to resolve some paradoxes via some quaint syllogisms (along the
> lines of all phenomena are formless, all people are phenomonological,
> all experiences of formlessness are formless)?
Some perhaps. But only to the extent that it is a philosophical
position. In experience, no such dualities arise.
> I'm not sure where to pinpoint the fallacy (if there is one), but
> perhaps it hinges on the quandary of self-existence. That is, by
> declaring a "one that is many" is a proposition that all nodes of
> awareness are fungible (I'm not the English language I speak as my
> native tongue, but my "self" could have been instead be the product of
> an upbringing in China) and that this very observation is dissociative
> *and* unresolvable. Does this lead to an unconscious need to resolve
> the ego-threatening experience of existential nihilism?
Existential nihilism, as I understand it, is the feeling the notion
that the world lacks meaning or purpose. All of existence -- actions,
suffering, feelings -- is senseless, nothingness. It is accompanied by
pessimism.
This is not what the term "emptiness" signifies in Buddhism.
> Without being able to claim a gestalt formlessness we are left with an
> unsolvable dual-yet-not-dual paradox of personal identity and with it
> formful-yet-formless awareness and experience. But does that put the
> lie to one claim of Buddhahood if "true" formlessness can both be
> experienced and can never be experienced? Or is it true that even for
> those quintessential Buddhas, that even *they* can't experience such a
> thing, given that their own experience is riven with dependencies on
> awareness and experience? By lofting that ability to some realm of
> Buddhahood, even if it is paradoxical, how is this not a leap of faith
> that depends on a bit of myth-making with a tinge of Buddhalotry?
You've lost me again. Emptiness is not a philosophical position, but
an experience beyond mind, ie. name and form. You obviously want me to
describe or define it. I can only tell you what it feels like, but
not without using phrases that lend themselves to misunderstanding.
Usually, it is defined in a negative sense, in terms of what it is
not. It is what is left when the ego (ie. identification with form)
falls away.
"First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then there is." We
identify with form and form a false sense of self. Then the bottom
drops out of our sense of self and there is an expansive awareness. We
have shifted from form consciousness to "space" consciousness.
Finally, this is integrated into the world of form, and we experience
the interplay of form and space.
Eckhart Tolle has a very resonant term for it: "stillness." Its marks
are harmony, bliss, connectedness, as opposed to a sense of isolation
and separation. Formlessness, stillness is the dimension of the
unconditioned. Yet it is not a thing separate from form.
zenworm
never not
^~
herbzet
Jigme Dorje wrote:
> In mindfulness practice, you investigate your thoughts and
> psychophysical aggregates and see that there is no self in them. But
> who is this "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions,
> formations and consciousness?
Yes, /that/ is the question, precisely.
If one considers the question, and not _only_ intellectually but actually
takes to observing this "you" that observes the form, feelings, perceptions
etc., ...
This, /precisely/, is the "turning around in the seat of consciousness".
This is looking backwards, inwards, toward the origin of awareness,
or consciousness, or whatever -- call it what you will.
This "you" that observes the form, feeling, perceptions, formations
and consciousness -- this, precisely, is, as I have said on these
boards a number of times since I showed up here, this "you" can
be understood thru and thru by /throwing it out/.
By which I mean:
Throw
It
Out.
Capiche? :-)
--
hz
herbzet
Jigme Dorje wrote:
> The voice in the head falls into the realm of consciousness in
> Buddhist analysis. But what is it that experiences consciousness, that
> observes it arising?
Again, just so.
JUST so.
What *is* that?
--
hz
herbzet
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> My understanding is that Buddhism is riven with debates over this very
> quandary, how to avoid making Buddhalotry of the dharma (e.g., the
> panentheist proposition of a primordial mind)
I remember running across a book in a library detailing the happenings
at some philosophy colloquium at Boston University, at which D.T Suzuki
was in attendance. The charge was raised that, in talking about the zen
point of view, he was describing a pantheist ontology. Suzuki defended
himself against the charge, of course.
After some consideration, I put the book back on the shelf.
My own feeling is that a pantheist viewpoint "of a primordial mind"
is not such a bad thing, as viewpoints go. :-)
> while avoiding the
> nihilism of naive materialism (i.e., sentience is absolutely leveled
> as no better than any other physical process).
[...]
> No matter how non-dual the experience may seem there is an unavoidable
> dualism inherent in a sentient creature having such an experience.
A delightful perplexity -- without agreeing or denying, I'll opine
that this is _very_ close to the heart of the matter.
Best to actually _have_ the experience, if that can be arranged, to
see for oneself what's what. :-)
--
hz
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> Jigme Dorje:
Who throws out the incriminated "you"?
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott
Duality gets switched off once in a while.
Peter Olcott
That is the only way to really know.
Beerlet Dhiblang
Yes but yours is a good one here. I appreciate your taking up the
challenge in the right direction...
> This one
> is far from perfect, but here goes: mind is like holding a mirror to a
> mirror. What we see is a mirror mirrored in a mirror mirrored in a
> mirror ad infinitim. This is "proliferation." A thought arises. Our
> mind observes the thought and comments on it, multipying it into other
> thoughts, ad infinitim. We become lost in an internal universe, a hall
> of mirrors, until we are are no longer aware of the real world.
Well put...
(in case you haven't seen this one before, check out the third full
recursion:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3012/716/1600/addams-mirror-recursion-barber-shop-monster.jpg
)
> Mindfulness is putting down the mirror. When a thought arises, we
> notice it and alow it to arise, and if a voice in the head arises, we
> see that this is only the mirror, and we put it down.
>
> The voice in the head falls into the realm of consciousness in
> Buddhist analysis. But what is it that experiences consciousness, that
> observes it arising?
Good point. What is it?
FWIW, I don't mention this as some attainment or triumph, the
experience I describe here ended up driving me nuts in that having
done it, it become a problem for me trying to drive it (addictive
behavior)....
I wonder what my experience was. Some have told me its a samadhi
experience, others say its a lower jhana, but none of the descriptions
I have read since matched what I felt. What I felt (this was one of my
last long mediations) was an utter dissapation away of thought & just
the purest sensation of "mind." It wasn't a sensation anywhere else
except of *mind* itself, and it was like a quantum field of virtual
particles arising and falling, but as a luminous field in the shape of
a zillion-petaled lotus. It was an experience, perhaps even a supernal
one, it beat the heck out of any contraban substance I'd ever taken
the liberty to indulge. But although I found it remarkable at the time
it turned to be just another experience. It wasn't life changing
except it seemed that pushing down that avenue would lead to
frustration, which seemed counterproductive (meditation olympics, blah
blah...).
But I'm long since over *that*, but I'm left to wonder: Would that
experience constitute the meta-consciousness - the awareness - you're
pointing to?
> > Is this a false criticism, that Buddhists suffer a bit of hubris
> > trying to resolve some paradoxes via some quaint syllogisms (along the
> > lines of all phenomena are formless, all people are phenomonological,
> > all experiences of formlessness are formless)?
>
> Some perhaps. But only to the extent that it is a philosophical
> position. In experience, no such dualities arise.
Thanks. Going to take that in.
>
> > I'm not sure where to pinpoint the fallacy (if there is one), but
> > perhaps it hinges on the quandary of self-existence. That is, by
> > declaring a "one that is many" is a proposition that all nodes of
> > awareness are fungible (I'm not the English language I speak as my
> > native tongue, but my "self" could have been instead be the product of
> > an upbringing in China) and that this very observation is dissociative
> > *and* unresolvable. Does this lead to an unconscious need to resolve
> > the ego-threatening experience of existential nihilism?
>
> Existential nihilism, as I understand it, is the feeling the notion
> that the world lacks meaning or purpose.
Yes. However the *experience* of it is dissociative & ego threatening.
The first reaction to allowing one's self to become fungible with
everyone else's, for instance, is to recoil from the recognition and
ascribe it to sophistry, starry-eyed sophomorism. I suppose this is
where koan-like challenges provide gentle, structured access. My point
is that the recognition & experience are not trite at all, but rather
disconcerting. Even something as trifling as hypnogogic moments of
infinitude proffer unboundedness.
> All of existence -- actions,
> suffering, feelings -- is senseless, nothingness. It is accompanied by
> pessimism.
>
> This is not what the term "emptiness" signifies in Buddhism.
Agreed.
>
> > Without being able to claim a gestalt formlessness we are left with an
> > unsolvable dual-yet-not-dual paradox of personal identity and with it
> > formful-yet-formless awareness and experience. But does that put the
> > lie to one claim of Buddhahood if "true" formlessness can both be
> > experienced and can never be experienced? Or is it true that even for
> > those quintessential Buddhas, that even *they* can't experience such a
> > thing, given that their own experience is riven with dependencies on
> > awareness and experience? By lofting that ability to some realm of
> > Buddhahood, even if it is paradoxical, how is this not a leap of faith
> > that depends on a bit of myth-making with a tinge of Buddhalotry?
>
> You've lost me again. Emptiness is not a philosophical position, but
> an experience beyond mind, ie. name and form. You obviously want me to
> describe or define it. I can only tell you what it feels like, but
> not without using phrases that lend themselves to misunderstanding.
I guess what I'm suggesting that in theory there might be a problem,
but how is that problem averted in practice? And the answer appears
(quite reasonably) that practice and experience will resolve it.
That's all we have to work from & so we have to make the best use of
what we've got.
I look at it this way: There's a carrier wave with a variety of
signals on it. Quiesce the modulations, the noisy ones, and what is
left is essential and pure. This is good stuff, but how are we sure of
the fidelity of the carrier?
At some point we have to surrender to the irreducible essential
experience, it can't be pared down any deeper with intellect alone.
BTW, thanks for playing those, I know I kinda lobbed them over the
line....
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
Oooh! Do I get a prize?
> Best to actually _have_ the experience, if that can be arranged, to
> see for oneself what's what. :-)
Dammit, I was hoping I wouldn't have to pay....
Funny, that, because it's free.
P.S. Y'all are such wonderful teachers. If I ever end up trying to
explain this stuff what lineage would I claim? absfg? El Dupree?
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
It's mauve.
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
Keynes
You surpass the teachers when there's nothing to say.
IMO it's all about paying attention. Drilling right down
to the instant without baggage of before and behind.
It's always right here. Mindfulness gets it.
In searching, visions and miracles may appear, but
they are still just compounded things of samsaric nature.
Makyo. Illusions of coming and going impermanence.
In mindfulness there is no coming or going.
Of course this makes no sense. Perhaps making
sense is ultimately non-sense. (But if we weren't
constantly trying to make sense, how could we
live forever? 8-)
Beerlet Dhiblang
Yeh, and that too.
/l
brian mitchell
>Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
>Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
>factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
>(perception), sankhara (formation), and vinna?a (consciousness.)
Would you be willing to go into this in detail and see if modern Western terms can be found which
are directly equivalent?
If so, we should start with form. What exactly is being spoken of by the Buddhist term 'rupa/form'?
Does that equate with our Western, probably Platonic, sense of that word?
Jigme Dorje
Or Maude?
Jigme Dorje
> Jigme Dorje wrote:
> >Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
> >Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
> >factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
> >(perception), sankhara (formation), and vinna?a (consciousness.)
>
> Would you be willing to go into this in detail and see if modern Western terms can be found which
> are directly equivalent?
Brian, you always pose the most interesting questions. I'm not sure
I'm up to it. I'm just a simple guy with a smattering of information
about Buddhism.
> If so, we should start with form. What exactly is being spoken of by the Buddhist term 'rupa/form'?
> Does that equate with our Western, probably Platonic, sense of that word?
Brian, I'm not sure. What is the Western sense of the word? It's often
hard to discuss the skandas even within Buddhism, as there are various
codifications made at various points in time.
It is usually used to describe matter or form, "that which has shape
and manifests itself to the senses as substance." In the context of
the five aggregates, it refers to the material component or body of
the individual. It is also sometimes used in a general sense as "the
world." The compound term "name and form" (nama-rupa), refers to the
totality of the individual, rupa denoting the body and nama, the four
psychological or immaterial aggregates: feeling (vedana), perceptions
(saṃjna), volitional impulses (saṃskara), and consciousness
(vijnana).
For a scholar, this would be too easy. He would go into the Vedic
connotations and the Chinese interpretations and would point out that
it caused disagreements among Buddhists of old. I'm not that
sophisticated. I simply use it to refer to that which manifests to the
senses as physical.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I will ne
straightforward with you. I do not use the term "awareness"
interchangeably with the skanda of "consciousness," and I don't have
a conceptual codification or particular working definition. It is a
convention I use to describe the expansive experience beyond name and
form.
Jigme Dorje
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you used him up yet?
brian mitchell
>On Dec 14, 4:45 pm, brian mitchell <brainm...@fishing.net> wrote:
>> Jigme Dorje wrote:
>> >Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
>> >Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
>> >factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
>> >(perception), sankhara (formation), and vinna?a (consciousness.)
>>
>> Would you be willing to go into this in detail and see if modern Western terms can be found which
>> are directly equivalent?
>
>Brian, you always pose the most interesting questions. I'm not sure
>I'm up to it. I'm just a simple guy with a smattering of information
>about Buddhism.
I come unarmed.
>
>> If so, we should start with form. What exactly is being spoken of by the Buddhist term 'rupa/form'?
>> Does that equate with our Western, probably Platonic, sense of that word?
>
>What is the Western sense of the word?
It might turn out that I just mean *my* sense of it, but it seems to me that as well as "that which
has shape and manifests itself to the senses as substance," it also carries the sense of
intrinsicality, the informing idea of a thing, the shape-and-substance of *this* and no other thing.
So there's a spiritual, or ideal, overtone; something that can exist independently of any accidental
matter. When I erect the formwork for a concrete structure, I'm enclosing its form, its boundaries,
determining what the structure will become. I'm wondering if anything like this informing,
individualising element exists in the Asian/Buddhist use of the word. If it doesn't, how might that
affect how a person who developed in that culture regards their body and the bodies of others,
compared to how a European might regard theirs?
This grows out of a larger question about how cultural assumptions may be built into perception and
understanding, and whether or how well such assumptions can travel. The list of aggregates is not
just a description of the structural components of a person, it's also a functional model. This
shows up more in the longer dependent origination list which has the form: because there is A, there
arises B; because of B, C arises, and so on. My difficulty is that I come upon things which I simply
don't recognise, and that there seem to be glaring omissions in the model. I don't know if this
should be put down to my ignorance alone, or there is an attempt to graft alien cultural concepts,
or if it's only a matter of translation. As well as cultural diversity, there's also the ancient to
modern mutation of ideas to take into account.
> In the context of
>the five aggregates, it refers to the material component or body of
>the individual. It is also sometimes used in a general sense as "the
>world."
By "the world" do you mean the sum total of all physical objects on this planet? Not cultures or
institutions or anything?
> I simply use it to refer to that which manifests to the
>senses as physical.
I'm not sure anything does manifest to the senses without there being a (probably conscious) mind
entailed, but perhaps that will get addressed later.
>I'm not sure where you are going with this...
Nor I, exactly, though I think I've announced my interest. I think having a model of the mind is
useful (or maybe I just like playing with models), but it should ideally be an accurate one, a tool
to fit the mind that uses it. Any more thoughts or observations about form? And then... what about
'feeling'?
Jigme Dorje
> Jigme Dorje wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 4:45 pm, brian mitchell <brainm...@fishing.net> wrote:
> >> Jigme Dorje wrote:
> >> >Just as you say these are difficult semantics and concepts. In
> >> >Buddhism, consciousness refers to the fifth aggregate of self, mental
> >> >factors. The aggregates are: rupa (form), vedana (feeling), sanna
> >> >(perception), sankhara (formation), and vinna?a (consciousness.)
>
> >> Would you be willing to go into this in detail and see if modern Western terms can be found which
> >> are directly equivalent?
>
> >Brian, you always pose the most interesting questions. I'm not sure
> >I'm up to it. I'm just a simple guy with a smattering of information
> >about Buddhism.
>
> I come unarmed.
Your vocabulary is formidable!
>
> >> If so, we should start with form. What exactly is being spoken of by the Buddhist term 'rupa/form'?
> >> Does that equate with our Western, probably Platonic, sense of that word?
>
> >What is the Western sense of the word?
>
> It might turn out that I just mean *my* sense of it, but it seems to me that as well as "that which
> has shape and manifests itself to the senses as substance," it also carries the sense of
> intrinsicality, the informing idea of a thing, the shape-and-substance of *this* and no other thing.
> So there's a spiritual, or ideal, overtone; something that can exist independently of any accidental
> matter. When I erect the formwork for a concrete structure, I'm enclosing its form, its boundaries,
> determining what the structure will become. I'm wondering if anything like this informing,
> individualising element exists in the Asian/Buddhist use of the word. If it doesn't, how might that
> affect how a person who developed in that culture regards their body and the bodies of others,
> compared to how a European might regard theirs?
If I am understanding you, you are talking about Platonic idealism? I
could be wrong but Peter appears to believe in this. While I don't
have sufficient information about India to say, as regards the East
Asian countries, I would say not. Rather, animism is practiced, and
it looks almost like Indian pantheism in a way. For example, there is
a god of the mountain, and Korean Buddhist temples often have a small
temple set aside for him, with a sutra devoted to him opened on a low
alter.
Animism to me is a profound insight into nature.I spoke of the
Yogacaran description of jnana, and the sense of oneness with all of
nature that arises in this state. I experience this sense of all
material things being sentient, even rocks, and I don't venture to
make conjectural theories and claims around it, but I do sense life
force within things, and an underlying sameness.
As for Yogacara ("Consciousness Only") I don't believe this is exactly
Platonic Idealism either but I will leave it to you to judge. It
posits that total awareness is the true nature of all things,
something I also feel. There is no discrimination between inside and
outside, or internal and external and only the "singular total truth
of unity, which subsumes the "I" of the ego-differentiated self. After
enlightenment the mind's process of seeking outside itself ceases, as
does the process of sending energy out (in the form of attachments to
the external conditional world). Rather, the mind is now contemplative
absorbing energy for the benefit of itself and humanity, like a flower
absorbing the rays of the sun."
Roger Zinn, from: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm
> This grows out of a larger question about how cultural assumptions may be built into perception and
> understanding, and whether or how well such assumptions can travel. The list of aggregates is not
> just a description of the structural components of a person, it's also a functional model. This
> shows up more in the longer dependent origination list which has the form: because there is A, there
> arises B; because of B, C arises, and so on. My difficulty is that I come upon things which I simply
> don't recognise, and that there seem to be glaring omissions in the model. I don't know if this
> should be put down to my ignorance alone, or there is an attempt to graft alien cultural concepts,
> or if it's only a matter of translation. As well as cultural diversity, there's also the ancient to
> modern mutation of ideas to take into account.
Well, I have rediscovered animism, consciousness only, elements of the
Pali and the Mahayana Prajnaparamita Sutras, such as the Heart Sutra
and Diamond Cutter through personal experience. I think that is what
they are for, to rediscover - not just to study as dead tomes written
in dead languages about dead mythologies. They were written for a
reason, and many of these were obviously written to point to actual
personal experience, and this is one way of verifying what you are
experiencing in practice - they suddenly come alive and ring true, as
if someone has extracted them from you and put them into written form.
Other parts appear to be adventitious. This is not always a bad thing
since a good part or the Prajnaparamita literature, Chan and so forth
also stem from direct experience of awareness. But the Sutras do
contain the conventional nod to a pantheon of gods, bombastic language
and in some cases (the Lotus Sutra), as Prof Hayes used to put it,
outright "ugly triumphalism."
To expect anything to be "pure" is silly, but to allow what is pure to
speak to you is the purpose of the writings.
> > In the context of
> >the five aggregates, it refers to the material component or body of
> >the individual. It is also sometimes used in a general sense as "the
> >world."
>
> By "the world" do you mean the sum total of all physical objects on this planet? Not cultures or
> institutions or anything?
I would assume so, since, used in a general sense, it refers to form,
both mental and physical. Then there are specific adjectives used in
conjunction with rupa for the various types of form.
> > I simply use it to refer to that which manifests to the
> >senses as physical.
>
> I'm not sure anything does manifest to the senses without there being a (probably conscious) mind
> entailed, but perhaps that will get addressed later.
I would say so.
> >I'm not sure where you are going with this...
>
> Nor I, exactly, though I think I've announced my interest. I think having a model of the mind is
> useful (or maybe I just like playing with models), but it should ideally be an accurate one, a tool
> to fit the mind that uses it. Any more thoughts or observations about form? And then... what about
> 'feeling'?
OK, that comes next.