Dennis Mahar wrote:neither 'not one' or 'not two'.
middle way.
pragmatic.
That's not the middle way. The middle way is neither "neither 'not one' or 'not two'" nor "both 'not one' and 'not two'."
The straight 'n' narrow is narrower than you think. As far as I am concerned however, it is broader than daylight and Kim Kardashian's ass put together.
Dennis, do you see how all these various characters only continue prove the point; "I know, you don't."
And it's spoken by everyone you come across, Pincho, Jup, Solway- "This is the greatest book ever written"-Poison
This endless repetitive assertion only makes me disinterested in whatever apparent higher knowledge I'm intellectually incapable of grasping. All that I see is clinging and not clinging.
Said this before but if anyone was actually interested in some kind of intellectual 'progress' (since there is complaining about it) then wouldn't you move forward from the beginning using agreed upon certainties?
We never actually live in the moment.
we conceptualise about 'what happened' after it already happened.
we have a story about 'what happened'.
experience is the epistemological domain.
we reach into a bucket called 'the past' reflectively and form paradigms or borrow paradigms to hopefully set up a future that will bring pleasure and alleviate suffering.
these paradigms are supposed to pay-off a jackpot.
fishing expedition.
the wish granting fairy.
no paradigm is absolute.
some work better than others.
Ok so if paradigms are the only option, what's the most rational one or 'best' choice. Clearly it would involve not clinging, but how do you view that path.
The relationship between the anti-theoretical function of emptiness and nirvana is quite close.
Thoughts are useful, but the results of these thoughts, namely concepts, are fishing expeditions.
Similarly, desires and dispositions have a specific function, for they assist the individual in acting in and interacting with his or her world, but if too much
emphasis is placed on any of these, i.e. thoughts, desires, or dispositions, then one will hold a false view of the world.
The character of reality is not differentiated; all divisions are artificial and imposed by the mind.
Without the passionate clinging of the unenlightened mind, the best possible description of this reality is that it is at peace and restful.
There is process and flux, for elements continue to arise and cease dependently.
Without the imposition of the insecure mind this process is undisturbed by obsessions.
Moreover, were the insecure mind not to attribute essences to the process and its products, there would not even be a need to refer to them
as 'empty'
When one’s dispositions and obsessions are extinguished, one sees
this nature of reality as it is, i.e. empty, undifferentiated, and undisturbed.
Dennis Mahar wrote:When one’s dispositions and obsessions are extinguished, one sees
this nature of reality as it is, i.e. empty, undifferentiated, and undisturbed.
"Undisturbed" meaning of the same continuous 'essence' or 'kind of arising' for all experience?
That the passing by of the 'show' continues to pass by as it does despite the events displayed in form? (example death)
Seeing the nature of these as they arise without any identification or pre-conceived ideas.
Is this not the end of the possible intellectual 'discovery'. The rest being simply speculation on That.
experience is the epistemelogical domain.
experience happened and distinctions are drawn as an act of consciousness.
upon reflection.
what we know and how we know it.
how we know it is by way of discriminating and that is acknowledged as source.
we're in the game and thinking about the game in order to get good at the game.
the game is played from Self.
if you think Self exists inherently then Self will appear to be 'contents inherent' as sufficient or insufficient to get good at the game.
experience is known as that which happens to me and is dangerous and all those cagey moves arise.
the experience of 'walking on eggshells' comes out of people look sort of frightening to you because they are frightened of you and vice versa.
a path of seeking opens up.
a radical shift in perception is possible.
recognising causality and knowing that discloses Self as a context to live from.
that means 'certainty'.
that means completion.
that means the ceasing of discrimination.
open and shut case.
from the context of causality, as the Buddha indicated, one has a path that can be walked in confidence.
this ceases, that ceases
this arises, that arises
causing harm gets a truckload of trouble paying off.
enmeshment.
experience shows that.
what you know and how you know it goes a long way in alleviating the stress of samsara.
Knowing the truth of the average delusion of conceptual attachment is a vital 'this ceases, that ceases'.
Neither of us would be 'not caring' if we thought death were the final end.
When jupiviv made that joke of a threat I had a laugh mostly because even if one were completely serious,
I can tell that you would be caring about such a possibility an exact amount of zero.
This to me is a fundamental part of liberation, freedom from having to care.
It's also the context I see religions coming from when they talk about how events such as Jesus dying on the cross and his speaking about eternal life brought salvation.
Not that they actually get what's occurring, but even this shaky belief will bring comfort.
Actually knowing is a whole different scenario, completely unbounded.
Buddha's conversation (not close to accurate, but accurate points of convo)
"Will my Self continue after death?"
"No, nothing of it remains"
Then I can imagine the look on the students face and Buddha following with
"You just don't get it, there are no lasting selfhood characteristics to lose in the first place"
Dennis Mahar wrote:recognising causality and knowing that discloses Self as a context to live from.
that means 'certainty'.
that means completion.
that means the ceasing of discrimination.
open and shut case.
Causality means that the Self is not wholly within us but also in all things except us, so it's not a context to live from.
If the Self is Real, meaning independent, static, unchangeable, fixed which is refuted.
If the Self is empty, then it is dynamic, transformable, affective which is affirmed.
from that context as an understanding to live from,
and recognising language is empty as well,
if you insult me,
there is absolutely no possibility I can be affected in any substantial way.
like water off a duck's back.
and vice versa if your context is the Self is empty.
the possibility of well-being opens up,
in that way causality becomes available as equipment to get in the driver's seat.
It's not like there's choice involved it's just 'what happens as a consequence.
A context is a generator.
The context 'criminal' generates crime, can't avoid it.
The context 'empty self' generates a lack of stress, can't avoid it.
Yeah it's odd (in terms of impermanence, emptiness, no choice) hearing people point out personal characteristics they once perceived, or still think they perceive based on one's actions.
Nagarjuna's tetralemma is concerned with 'dealing with propositions'.
How can the proposition 'the french king is bald' be dealt with.
french exists in relation to what is not french so it is dependent. .
king exists in relation to what is not king so it is dependent.
bald exists in relation to what is not bald so it is dependent.
conventionally, 'the french king is bald' has meaning via consensual agreement between people.
in that way we can't say 'the french king is bald' doesn't exist.
ultimately, 'the french king is bald' is exposed as a complete absence of meaning because without consensual agreement between people it's not there.
the Sage says when faced with a proposition 'the french king is bald'.
Yes and No.
Things are empty of inherent exist because they are dependent,ok, and I know that 'wraps up' some of the following points, but to me it seems the true meaninglessness of everything is due to three true observationss- All of it is transient always. All of it is uncontrolled, not influenced. All of it is 'appearance and illusory-like'.
And it isn't even a choice, dive in and there's no coming back no matter who you are.
Even if one were to try and fool themselves afterward, you can't hide from the truth once it never stops being right in front of you.
You are right to imply the reasoning scaffold of differentiation is left behind- living this doesn't require anything.
Like stepping onto a stair that isn't there, or reaching for an imagined thing that's now faded away as a morning dream,
except now that emptiness is all too familiar, while still retaining that hint of 'almost unbelievable'.
