movingalways wrote:
How is knowledge of impermanence a failure to become "Man" in the larger sense?
Knowing things are impermanent only solidifies a new category of "fleeting' items.
By using the word 'knowing', you appear to be acknowledging that things are indeed impermanent. Whatever category the truth of impermanence solidifies is a definition applied by the individual. Where you see 'fleeting' I see 'for a time.'
The failure lies in understanding desire is fundamental to the creation of anything, even for the tiniest of moments and the shortest of duration. Your desire or the desire of others before or next to you. You can become subject (desiring) or object (desired) but in any case the thing is born.
How am I denying desiring by acknowledging the truth of impermanence? For example, desiring to build the Taj Mahal or or paint a picture does not change the truth that ultimately, both things are dependently originated and impermanent.
"Ever lasting" in its own moment.
Nice poetry, but a moment is not ever-lasting.
That's why impermanence as feature of things counters the very act of man: to cast his desire of permanency. Which in the highest form will lead to wisdom of the absolute.
Again, man's desire of permanency does not permanency make so no matter how hard he tries to cast a thing in a mold that never breaks, his desire will not keep it from breaking. I do not see how ignoring the truth that things do not last forever leads to wisdom of any kind.
I don't know how you conceptualize permanency, but when I conceptualize permanency, I conceptualize stagnation, fixedness - no change of experience. For example, if cat is permanent and one desired cat, cat would appear and never leave. There would be no room for dog, tree, rock, underwear or building the Pyramids, just CAT, only CAT.
Quote:
Crafting 'it', daring 'it' into an objective or absolute existence does not make it objective or absolute. Again there is a difference between realizing things are not actually permanent and believing they are. It sounds to me is if you are promoting magical thinking.
You are still thinking in terms of permanent things (false) versus impermanent things (true). But that's not going to the fundamentals.
No, you think I am thinking in terms of permanent things (false) versus impermanent things (true). Instead I'm thinking in terms of permanent things (ignorance) and impermanent things (wisdom).
To have a thing at all, desire has already been applied, as well permanency.
This is where I lose you. I absolutely do not need to apply permanency to a thing in order to desire it or love it (enjoy it).
To have a thing, it comes natural to desire it (or fear it) depending on how much a "thing" it is to you. It cannot be avoided since the nature of the thing is desire in the first place and not just a set of unknown causes. To then in such situation add that it's not really permanent is only masking the issue. There's no substantial difference between a fleeing and a constant thing. From your relative short existence the distinction would be immaterial and useless to make in any practical situation. Knowing the sun is not going too last forever is immaterial. If it somehow would, it wouldn't change you.
There you go speaking for me again. Knowing the sun is not going to last forever has changed me and not only a little bit, but drastically. Knowing things are not permanent allows desire without clinging and fear that can be transcended so logic can kick in. I suppose it could be said that
the truth of impermanence is the permanent 'object' being sought.
Even if it is true that the nature of a thing is desire (I can see that vision), that does not change the truth that the desired thing is not permanent.
Quote:
Perhaps it is true that our minds are fundamentally geared toward seeking for the absolute in the relative, but that does not mean we have to remain fundamentalists. :-)
You just want to have things while eating them too ;)
Nope, tasting is fine :-)
The wise man can also be "taken by not-taking delight"! But delight is not the issue here but the ignorance of having things in the first place, fleeting or not. Maugham is still playing with things, fleeting or impermanent as they might appear to him. Generally people suffer when things are taken away or dissolve unless emptiness is seen as fulfilment.
We agree on your last statement. But I don't believe we agree on its mechanics. For me, people suffer when things are taken away because they desire them to be permanent and suffer when this desire cannot be fulfilled. I see no contradiction between emptiness as fulfillment and knowledge of impermanence.
Quote:
What I was going for is to express that to have knowledge of impermanence is to stand (psychologically) still in impermanence even though you know things are movingalways. :-)
Yes, that illusion to know a thing or two....
Not an illusion, and it is to know everything (of its moment).
Quote:
Good grief man, are you suggesting that the man pursuing the relative as if it is the absolute is doing so 24/7? Surely during his day he takes a break or two to experience things as they truly are? In my scenario, Man meets Woman, they are One.
Of course the female would suggest unification here. The man stands apart, otherwise, what would be man about him? To be able to create some thought, some thing, some desire. It's where he "exists", where he's at. Man and Woman will never meet and not even in the mind where such "forces" are imagined to unite. It would just destroy both and chaos and confusion (not emptiness) would be the result. Of course, destruction can be desired too.
As I see it, my vision of creating things (Man) and enjoying the process (Woman) is the more complete and honest vision. Surely Man is not desiring things without reason, and is not the most obvious reasons, enjoyment of the thing?
'Meeting' was meant to be a metaphor, not an actuality. A man or woman errs when they look outside for completion, everything is 'already' here. 'Man' and 'Woman' are not "forces", they are metaphors for principles of creating.