Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Earthninja said:
Ive had a few insights but something wacks me on the head **this isn't it! Keep going dumbass!***
I feel this is a healthy and humorous approach.
Neti-neti, the negation of any insight as a subtle evolvement and involvement of both experiential understanding and monkey mind, means we do not mistake reefs, icebergs and debris for the far shore.
In a strange way, the far shore becomes samsara in a nirvanic form and somewhat unattainable.
No going back, nowhere to reach, Nothing to attain ...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2015
@Earthninja said:Who's flower is it that's out the window?
When a snow flake falls, who us doing the falling?
@Cinorjer said:
Ah, @Lionduck and @SpinyNorman then you are of the one mind camp. So the mind is >nothing but an empty bowl, and we fill and empty it like cooks serving stew? So if the mind >is the bowl, who is it empties the bowl?
There is nothing special about Buddha's mind after awakening? It was the same mind he >had before? Then all this talk of Enlightenment sounds like a lot of fuss about nothing. If it >is a matter of just realizing the truth of the world, then why aren't you a Buddha also?
It sounds like you're playing around with the idea that the mind is inherently empty. Is this >correct?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. Anyone who knows me from my posts in the past can >imagine the grin on my face. Just seeing if I can get a clarification.
Why, pray tell, does the mind have to be empty?
When unenlightened, one is an ordinary human being
When enlightened, one is a Buddha
That simple, that ordinary and that extraordinary.
@Earthninja said:
When I'm sure about something... I know I'm being a dumbass again
A plan I follow.
Certainty even in lesser realisation (yes there is deepening) certainty has to be let go of. In a sense 'the master' is always bowing to ignorance.
It is why I value the neti-neti teaching or 'oi dunno' mentioned. We can not know knowing or realise realisation.
Simple Oi dunno! is not enough to apply this perspective. One needs to suspend all judgments, like 'We can not know knowing'. In other words we don't know if we can not know knowing. Maybe we can, but we dunno that yet!
That's it! Breathe and relax, be fully in the present moment without a clue. Lovely!
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Are these unknowns unknowable or just unknown for now?
We don't even know if time will tell.
I like the paradoxes because it's sink or swim time. The knot can get tighter or come undone under its own weight.
Are these unknowns unknowable or just unknown for now?
Knowing is unobservable. Objects can be observed. The function of knowing or knowing power is not a tangible object. It's not a separate entity or individual self. It functions as part of a tangible form. Which in itself is insentient. Just flesh, blood and bone.
The witness (which is intangible) cannot witness itself directly.
The witness (knowing) can only know itself via reflection (thoughts about knowing).
An example would be two mirrors facing each other. They reflect each other infinitely. Knowing (mirror 1) and thoughts about knowing (mirror 2). The function and the object.
Or as it's sometimes expressed. The witness, of the witness, of the witness, times infinity. There is always just one, which is misperceived as two. The witness and witnessed are the same.
And actually, referring to it as one is also incorrect. As that creates a tangible object. So really it can only be lived.
@ourself said:
The knot can get tighter or come undone under its own weight.
Exactly so.
Dharma through constriction/concentration and dharma through knot being a tight ass. The Middle Way is between the extremes of knowing and unknowing ...
Mysticism is nothing more or less than a love-driven way of knowing God, that is centered in direct, immediate experience of God’s presence—as contrasted with the efforts of our minds to think through, capture, and describe the object of our belief in clear language, theological subtlety, or scientific precision....
“A mystic,” Peers wrote, “is a person who has fallen in love with God. We are not afraid of lovers—no indeed, all the world loves a lover. They attract us by their ardor, their single-mindedness, their yearning to be one with the object of their love.”
Mysticism is a way of living that makes this consciousness of God’s presence the shaping context, the compelling energy of our lives.
John Kirvan, God Hunger http://www.metanoia.org/martha/writing/contemplative.htm
@David said:
Are these unknowns unknowable or just unknown for now?
Paradox is inherent in knowing the unknowable as you mention.
It can not arrive or leave as that makes it an event.
This is the difficulty the Buddha faced in presenting his realisation. How could it find expression?
So we have a long tradition of founding the conditions conducive to realisation.
Inevitably part of any transmission is sometimes influenced by the unrealised. As such they are able to misunderstand, misalign, modify and emphasise irrelevence and miss important teachings.
Buddhism does still focus on mindfulness meditation, moral training, restraint and discipline. All these skilful means are the path set out by the Buddha.
Comments
Who is looking at the flower outside the window? ha!
where can i find the person who is dead?
I feel this is a healthy and humorous approach.
Neti-neti, the negation of any insight as a subtle evolvement and involvement of both experiential understanding and monkey mind, means we do not mistake reefs, icebergs and debris for the far shore.
In a strange way, the far shore becomes samsara in a nirvanic form and somewhat unattainable.
No going back, nowhere to reach, Nothing to attain ...
and
Guys, please - make sense! Do you actually mean Who's (ie, who IS)
or
'Whose (ie, to whom does this belong)...?!
What if light/flower/lens/optical nerve/brain/consciousness is one event?
Not even that.
Can you ever separate a who from the flower? Where is the division?
Lol how good are semantics and words!
Words about words about words
@federica they're isn't too many words who's purpoise is to confuse me. But their are those. Aren't this fun! English! What a great language!
When I'm sure about something... I know I'm being a dumbass again
It's reality an endless mystery. I'm slowly learning not to take myself too seriously. Whatever that means -<3
It's open to offers
Why, pray tell, does the mind have to be empty?
When unenlightened, one is an ordinary human being
When enlightened, one is a Buddha
That simple, that ordinary and that extraordinary.
Make of it what you wish.
Back to the campfire for more smores.
Oi dunno!
OK - back to the fridge for more ice cream.
A plan I follow.
Certainty even in lesser realisation (yes there is deepening) certainty has to be let go of. In a sense 'the master' is always bowing to ignorance.
It is why I value the neti-neti teaching or 'oi dunno' mentioned. We can not know knowing or realise realisation.
These people with plans...
How do you know?
Oi dunno!
Simple Oi dunno! is not enough to apply this perspective. One needs to suspend all judgments, like 'We can not know knowing'. In other words we don't know if we can not know knowing. Maybe we can, but we dunno that yet!
Oi still dunno! You should try this, it's a jolly good technique!
Oi dunno...
That's it! Breathe and relax, be fully in the present moment without a clue. Lovely!
Are these unknowns unknowable or just unknown for now?
We don't even know if time will tell.
I like the paradoxes because it's sink or swim time. The knot can get tighter or come undone under its own weight.
.
Knowing is unobservable. Objects can be observed. The function of knowing or knowing power is not a tangible object. It's not a separate entity or individual self. It functions as part of a tangible form. Which in itself is insentient. Just flesh, blood and bone.
The witness (which is intangible) cannot witness itself directly.
The witness (knowing) can only know itself via reflection (thoughts about knowing).
An example would be two mirrors facing each other. They reflect each other infinitely. Knowing (mirror 1) and thoughts about knowing (mirror 2). The function and the object.
Or as it's sometimes expressed. The witness, of the witness, of the witness, times infinity. There is always just one, which is misperceived as two. The witness and witnessed are the same.
And actually, referring to it as one is also incorrect. As that creates a tangible object. So really it can only be lived.
Shades of Alan Watts -
Nicely put T_A_S.
Exactly so.
Dharma through constriction/concentration and dharma through knot being a tight ass. The Middle Way is between the extremes of knowing and unknowing ...
Mysticism is nothing more or less than a love-driven way of knowing God, that is centered in direct, immediate experience of God’s presence—as contrasted
with the efforts of our minds to think through, capture, and describe the object of our belief in clear language, theological subtlety, or scientific precision....
“A mystic,” Peers wrote, “is a person who has fallen in love with God. We are not afraid of lovers—no indeed, all the world loves a lover. They attract us by their ardor, their single-mindedness, their yearning to be one with the object of their love.”
Mysticism is a way of living that makes this consciousness of God’s presence the shaping context, the compelling energy of our lives.
John Kirvan, God Hunger
http://www.metanoia.org/martha/writing/contemplative.htm
... and now back to the unrealisable ...
Please, no more!!
Fine by me.
Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.
udaywya
samudhaya asthangamaya
what else
Paradox is inherent in knowing the unknowable as you mention.
It can not arrive or leave as that makes it an event.
This is the difficulty the Buddha faced in presenting his realisation. How could it find expression?
So we have a long tradition of founding the conditions conducive to realisation.
Inevitably part of any transmission is sometimes influenced by the unrealised. As such they are able to misunderstand, misalign, modify and emphasise irrelevence and miss important teachings.
Buddhism does still focus on mindfulness meditation, moral training, restraint and discipline. All these skilful means are the path set out by the Buddha.
We haz plan!