MA wrote:Anything less than this is, to me, is not liberation.
Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.
MA wrote:Anything less than this is, to me, is not liberation.
I hear the compassion in your words, thank you.Cathy Preston wrote:MA wrote:Anything less than this is, to me, is not liberation.
Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.
Transcendent = emptiness."Christ, supreme poet, lived truth so passionately that every gesture of his, at once pure Act and perfect Symbol, embodied the transcendent."
~ Lewis Thompson
To embody the transcendent is why we are here.
Not them, the thought pattern of their flawless wisdom.The experience of being rooted in Jesus or Buddha which are conceptual frames.
Not even remotely true. One needs to get passed the religious idea of Jesus and the Buddha before they can absorb the life of their words of spirit/emptiness.The palpable experience of paying homage,
of being indebted to,
in debt.
pulling quotes that look like pep talks inducing a 'pink cloud'.
Every sentient mind is, by degrees of 'stickiness', bound to emptiness. Did you not just invite Cathy to share a story of nothing with you? I don't know what the content of that story would be, but I do recognize the content of the stories that the spiritual masters tell, and it has the same characters and same plot of different names, that of the nameless Ground and the named path and of their relationship to one another.of dwelling in conceptual frames.
'in a neck of the woods'
isn't that bounded?
While speaking in spirit, or giving life to emptiness, one transcends their awareness of causes and conditions. They are actualizing being emptied of these things, they are expanding their awareness of the Ground wherein no cause or condition can be found.
what exactly is transcended?
I'll offer my insight here, yours to accept or reject. You are hanging onto Ground rather than being expanded of Ground because you are stuck on your stickiness of recycling the same idea over and over again: "it's empty and meaningless." By giving life to Ground by way of words Jesus and the Buddha and Lao Tzu gave life to emptiness, to spirit, making it fully Who They Were, which allows others to see in themselves, the same life of spirit, of emptiness.I'm just looking at this experience of hanging on to 'ground'.
Eventually, death takes everything that is born, including one's soliloquoy as you call it. Until that happens, however, the man who has realized the unborn within himself, needs a way to express this story. Bottom line is that a human sentient mind cannot exist without thoughts - why not think/write of wholeness, the light, rather than think/write of causes and conditions, the darkness of relativity/fragmentation?It looks like something has to be 'given up' in one's soliloquoy.
Not a fair call. I do not need someone's compassion in order to respond to their thoughts. I read your post, drafted an immediate response, but didn't post it. It simply didn't 'hit the target.' I came to the computer this morning with the express purpose of 'hitting the target'. Acknowledging Cathy's compassion was simply that, an acknowledgment of compassion.You probably won't answer that post Pam because from how you've got us enrolled in your way of being is you have a compassion rule.
No perceived compassion by you, no response.
Is that a fair call?
Is that not what I am suggesting in my post above? Ground is expanded by languaging Ground. Being transparent to the transcendent.Consider this.
Nagarjuna's concepts do not inherently exist.
They are vehicles.
They are not 'the answers'.
They are an invitation for consciousness to open up to consciousness.
Spiritual stories are a vehicle to clear light, yes, a condition of no questions, no answers, yes, a possibility for human beings, yes.
They are a vehicle to clear light,
a possibility for human being,
a condition of no questions, no answers.
Love floods my mind for most of the day. In writing of this love, there are no questions, nor are there answers, only the language of love flowing forth. This, to me, is to embody the transcendent, to let one's light of unconditioned awareness shine.They disclose the trick of consciousness imputing inherent existence on appearing objects.
Imputing inherent existence produces aversion or attachment.
one can 'be in love' with appearances but that breaks down.
one can 'be love' with appearances.
that distinction 'be love' with appearances doesn't break down relatively, in dependence on whatever the activity is of the appearance.
The distinction 'be love' gets it that there's nothing to fix, be wary of, it's a naked presence where masking isn't.
There are no 'the answers'.
You've had 'be love' flood your mind?
even for 5 minutes?
No Q&A in it is there?
If we already have the answer are we seeking truth?Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.
If we don't like where reason is taking us is it logical to just say reason failsWiki wrote:Reason, is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.
If the answer is Unconditioned Love as MA asserts, then seeking truth is irrelevant.MA wrote:What I discovered is that speaking and writing of reason holds back the floodgates of love
MA wrote:This is why I have always said that the reasoning mind is not the pinnacle of enlightenment.
Cathy: If we already have the answer are we seeking truth?
What is the point of seeking truth if we don't accept the answer when it comes? How can an answer that one lives by, for and within, in this case, unconditional love, be irrelevant? If what I am saying about unconditional love being the way to expand beyond the human realm does not jibe with your idea of truth, no problem.If the answer is Unconditioned Love as MA asserts, then seeking truth is irrelevant.
How can awareness of something/anything lead nowhere? Is it not always now?That MA's pinnacle is untenable and thus leads nowhere escapes her.
Does not the Buddha speak of the born and the Unborn? Does Jesus not speak of the carnal or natural mind and the spiritual mind? Both are empty of inherent existence, but that does not mean they are the same experience of awareness. 'Standing' in the ground of the unborn, whether you choose to speak of it metaphorically or you choose to remain silent is the way the born is ended.That emptiness itself is empty and meaningless means there is NO GROUND OF BEING,
When you can reason the truth of the cause of your awareness so that I can clearly see this cause, you will convince me that reasoning or seeking truth is ongoing and has no boundary.thus there's a clear-cut ontological basis for the way things exist, and that basis is causes and conditions, reasoning or seeking truth is therefore ongoing and has no boundary.
MA wrote:What is the point of seeking truth if we don't accept the answer when it comes?
You didn't like where not having the answer was taking you so you disregarded the possibility of understanding and just slid into your comfort zone.MA wrote:What I discovered is that speaking and writing of reason holds back the floodgates of love
Do you think you would be aware if you were not born? Would you be aware if you did not have a brain? Would you be aware if there was nothing to be aware of?When you can reason the truth of the cause of your awareness so that I can clearly see this cause, you will convince me that reasoning or seeking truth is ongoing and has no boundary.
The gift of reasoning one's existence is that it brings you to the object of your truth seeking, which is the conclusion or understanding that in order to be born, there must be awareness of being born. Can you explain to me how else can 'you', however you define 'you', appear as a body if there is not present in your awareness, the thought of body appearance? Words attributed to the Buddha, words that for myself, I have reasoned to be sound and without fault:Cathy: Do you think you would be aware if you were not born? Would you be aware if you did not have a brain? Would you be aware if there was nothing to be aware of?
the Buddha: There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned. (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994)
the Buddha: "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." — SN 15.3
the Buddha: "And which birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." — SN 12.2
the Buddha: "Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba [the being-to-be-born] is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs." — MN 38
the Buddha: "In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair." — SN 12.64
The Buddha was clear, to be born is to suffer, to realize one's unborn nature is to be liberated from the suffering of being born.the Buddha: "With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.'" — SN 35.28
the Buddha: "So it is, Ananda. So it is. Even I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, thought: 'Renunciation is good. Seclusion is good.' But my heart didn't leap up at renunciation, didn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace. The thought occurred to me: 'What is the cause, what is the reason, why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'I haven't seen the drawback of sensual pleasures; I haven't pursued [that theme]. I haven't understood the reward of renunciation; I haven't familiarized myself with it. That's why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace.'
"Then the thought occurred to me: 'If, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I were to pursue that theme; and if, having understood the reward of renunciation, I were to familiarize myself with it, there's the possibility that my heart would leap up at renunciation, grow confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace.'
"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation..." — AN 9.41
Cathy, since we last spoke I have released my attachment to love, to use my own metaphors, I have crucified love on the cross of the unborn.Cathy Preston wrote:Yes the task is done, final and complete. That one will never again be born; not to remain unborn but to never be in the first place, not one thing can I claim as my own, as me, not one thing.
SOW, a link to a site of the Buddha's teachings of the original school, that of Theravada Buddhism [Pali Canon] which I have found to be excellent; included in the site are comments about the teachings: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ Here you will find everything recorded of the Buddha's words. All of my quotes above came from this site.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Really interesting Buddha quotes..
Can someone link me to the best available compilation of everything to read directly or indirectly from Buddha? I have read the main texts but there seems to be more.
Do you think we will not be re-born upon death if we are completely detached?
What happens if so? Nothing? A higher existence? How did Buddha know you don't return if he relayed this info while alive?