Magic

For there to be motion the mind has to assert reference points. When phenomena is examined no inherently existing reference point can be found. We cannot find an inherently existing beginning, nor end.

Only in abstraction do assert an objective end and beginning to things. Things or rather processes are by their nature unborn.

A metaphor for this would be the movie screen. Motion is just fast moving 2d frames. From that we get the illusion of time, space, form, movement, etc. But ultimately it is the mind creating/linking reference points. A relates to B and B relates to C. This is only possible if there was no true inherent connection other than the minds connection. This is the basis for subjectivity and individual interpretation. Each mind connects differently and assimilates information differently.

So movement is in its nature of no movement. Motion is a circle. There is no beginning, middle, and end. This is exactly what Zeno was pointing to.

The implications of this is profound. If all things lack intrinsic reality, then assertion of existence and non-existence do not apply to reality. And really any linkage, reference point, projection, assertion, symbolic overlay has no truly existent referent.

This is because entities cannot exist. There are only processes meeting processes. Each process coming together based on an infinite variety of causes and conditions. Completely appearing and disappearing. Traceless.

So ultimately things are like magic.

For there to be motion the mind has to assert reference points. When phenomena is examined no inherently existing reference point can be found. We cannot find an inherently existing beginning, nor end.

Only in abstraction do assert an objective end and beginning to things. Things or rather processes are by their nature unborn.

A metaphor for this would be the movie screen. Motion is just fast moving 2d frames. From that we get the illusion of time, space, form, movement, etc. But ultimately it is the mind creating/linking reference points. A relates to B and B relates to C. This is only possible if there was no true inherent connection other than the minds connection. This is the basis for subjectivity and individual interpretation. Each mind connects differently and assimilates information differently.

So movement is in its nature of no movement. Motion is a circle. There is no beginning, middle, and end. This is exactly what Zeno was pointing to.

The implications of this is profound. If all things lack intrinsic reality, then assertion of existence and non-existence do not apply to reality. And really any linkage, reference point, projection, assertion, symbolic overlay has no truly existent referent.

This is because entities cannot exist. There are only processes meeting processes. Each process coming together based on an infinite variety of causes and conditions. Completely appearing and disappearing. Traceless.

So ultimately things are like magic.

taiyaki said:

For there to be motion the mind has to assert reference points.

For there to be reference points there must be motion. :)

uh, in all likelihood.

Yes constantly moving processes, but cannot pin point reference points.
You can but thats just asserting inherency.

But then what use if calling motion, motion if there is no reference points that assert beginning, middle, end.

Labels such as movement and non-movement would be incorrect.

Fun thought =].

Don't we need a reference point to assert a non-reference point?

There is a motion that is not a motion. Luminosity. The openness to recast our point of view.

The very notion of a 'point of view' implies that we know there could be a different view.

Sometimes it’s described as skill beauty in play, sometimes translated as mindfulness, smrati. It’s that balancing quality, that can, as you, for example, you know, you notice, thinking is thinking.
But where did that actually come from? How did that happen? Some sort of quality there of being able to sense a different perspective. OK you’ve found a different perspective, you’re looking at a different perspective, but how? You were using this sensitivity, weren’t you? You sense, that wasn’t the right direction, you sense this wasn’t right, this felt a little bit better, you sense it was more in the right direction, or you found it wasn’t because you sensed it wasn’t. That play is going on all the time, that’s smrati, which is aware not just of what is happening, but the significance of what is happening: a sense that that’s significant, that’s right direction, that’s where I want to be going. That ability to sense that, that faculty, is very much the padma quality, to do with feeling, that’s what we’d say, generally speaking, you have to feel your way along. It’s translated as mindfulness, but it’s really a quality of feeling your way along and evaluating but intellectually.

I don't think anything is asserted. It is more like pulling out the carpet underneath and realizing freedom from holding any sort of position.

And yes asserting a non-reference point would be asserting a reference point.

But you can assert as much reference points are you want as long as you know there are no truly existing referents. For instance my name Albert is a symbol projected onto a body/mind. Yet when we look for Albert it is merely an idea dependent on those conditions. Thus even though a reference point is asserted, it is of the nature of appearance-emptiness. Thus like magic.

taiyaki said:

Yes constantly moving processes, but cannot pin point reference points.
You can but thats just asserting inherency.

In all likelihood pinpointing a position is not asserting that the position is permanent.

But then what use if calling motion, motion if there is no reference points that assert beginning, middle, end.

There are all sorts of beginnings, middles, endings, and they are quite useful referents, as is motion, in-all-likelihood.

Labels such as movement and non-movement would be incorrect.

Do you mean inherently incorrect?

MmmmMmm I am learning so much from you guys.

Thank you!

I was with you @taiyaki up until you compared it to magic... I see why you did that but still...

It's more like a loan from the bank that you pay back in full immediately... did the loan ever happen?

In all likelihood... ;) (thats especially for you Iktomi)

How did you learn to ride a bike?

I got on and my older brother pushed... me right into a big pile of bricks. That hurt.

I use the word magic because idk its like seeing with the eyes of a child again.

Everything has a sense of wonder. A basic goodness, beauty.

I think humans require reference points. Without reference points there could not be compassion. :scratch:

You should have said that... 'Its like seeing with the eyes of a child again'... thats pretty cool...

Someone on another thread said if one were enlightened (and I take from that they considered this to be the highest state of attainment) then they wouldnt be on newbuddhist any longer! Its funny as I think the opposite... there is a point of progress through relative chaos and then there is a point beyond which everything is in its place - of course there is no fixed point, its always been in its place... its just that at come point you see it, see yourself and work it out!! as you say @taiyaki magic! The scaffolding falls away and every moment is seen through the eyes of a new born baby...

ginab said:

I think humans require reference points. Without reference points there could not be compassion. :scratch:

Actually from a bodhisattva point of view there are infinite sentient beings and the vow is to save them all. Compassion does not need an object because compassion is compassion for the sake of compassion. Since the potential for suffering is infinite, the potentiality for expression for compassion is infinite.

every moment is new. every thought, sensation, smell taste, sight is new.

of course you can make reference to the past and link thoughts, sensations, and smells.

which is useful and nice. but ultimately everything is fresh and naked. Mmm bread.

Another way to frame it is that suffering is a projection from mind. The point is to cultivate compassion, thus suffering exists. Because suffering always exists, there is compassion.

But what suffering? Does not inherently exist. Thus the compassion does not inherently exist. But compassion now moves from being object orientated to an infinite embrace.

Suffering was a reference point, but because suffering doesn't inherently exist, infinite compassion is possible. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.

As long as there are mental projections and defilements the conditions for compassion to arise is infinite. And when all condition and projections are in a self loop for automatic compassion. Then that would be the absolute bodhicitta.

If motion is what u exeriencing than you are still in the dimension of space. When mind isolates itself from matter, can be experienced in higher jhanas, time goes away, but the motion still remains in boundless space. The ultimate is free from any dimensions. Motions and reference points or no reference points are only relevant to space and time continum.

If motion is what u exeriencing than you are still in the dimension of space. When mind isolates itself from matter, can be experienced in higher jhanas, time goes away, but the motion still remains in boundless space. The ultimate is free from any dimensions. Motions and reference points or no reference points are only relevant to space and time continum.

Taiyaki, there is no new moment or thought or sensation. Only dependent origination. Trying to give meaning to each arising moment as "fresh" or "not fresh" is only another interpretation and expectation. The ultimate is free from any moment and arising. It just doesn't arise or fall. Everything is on the tip of a one particlar chitta- a chitta which is the ultimate of being.

yes, you're absolute correct.
just appearance-emptiness.

thank you for the subtle teaching.

taiyaki said:

Compassion does not need an object because compassion is compassion for the sake of compassion.

Ah, now I'm see'n the magic.

If one sees neither freshness nor non- that in itself cuts through the dust on the mirror at the bottom of the sea.

But if one is freed from seeing freshness as inherent then one can use labels because labels are the appearance-emptiness as well.

thought or no thought, of one taste. appearance-emptiness.

but i do understand that ultimately it is only a conventional assertion.

i get why zen masters are quiet and then scream at oranges. fml.

taiyaki said:

i get why zen masters are quiet and then scream at oranges. fml.

They only do that when they're drunk.

... in all likelihood.

You are reminding me of myself here, taiyaki :) It's interesting and funny at the same time

taiyaki said:

But if one is freed from seeing freshness as inherent then one can use labels because labels are the appearance-emptiness as well.

thought or no thought, of one taste. appearance-emptiness.

but i do understand that ultimately it is only a conventional assertion.

i get why zen masters are quiet and then scream at oranges. fml.

If I'm understanding you correctly, this is the "problem" with trying to discuss Truth with people. You are trying to discuss something which cannot be labelled, which all labels are equally valid/non-valid ways of expressing it. Then people try to nit-pick what you're saying, then you have to go back and explain how what you are saying isn't ultimately true, and its opposite is also valid, although that was what you already meant with your initial point. It's just running in circles. Silence is the answer ;)

Yes silence is the answer.

People only see their problems/answers.
But because of the heart I am forced to post.

It's funny isn't it. Role reversal!