Clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

You don't want to do that. All phenomena arise within some larger context which is outside the phenomenon under attention. This is why awareness is more than just phenomena. Awareness points to the informational wholeness wherein some phenomenon or other is just one aspect.

 

So talking about awareness has special meaning beyond just talking about phenomena.

I generally agree with your other statements... except this one.

 

When a practitioner realises awareness, even up till Stage 4 non dual, there is a tendency to reify awareness as something of a larger context in which all other phenomena arise and subsides in.

 

But when a practitioner realises Anatta at Thusness Stage 5, he only sees sensations. This is well said by Daniel Ingram:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...aggregates.html

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

[goldisheavy]

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness,

 

What you call 5 aggregates are a feature that's particular to our current mentality. It's not something that's inherently thus. There are realms where sentient beings have no 5 aggregates. For example, formless gods realm. They don't have reified sense organs in that realm -- hence "formless".

 

Furthermore, what would happen if your eyes were gouged out? Would the visual awareness disappear? No it wouldn't.

 

Sense organs appear as a function of localizing yourself within a larger space. If you relax this need, what happens is that sense organs are no longer reified, and sensations can happen in very different, strange and mysterious ways. This kind of localization is just one of the many modalities that are possible. It's unfair to point to the artifacts of our current mentality as "the all".

 

Buddha's intent was a little different in that Sutta. Basically some people were going around saying that there exist things beyond mind and beyond sensations and so on. Even many Dzogchen people commit this folly, which is a shame (seems like a regression, whereas in many ways Dzogchen is a nice progression). Buddha was just saying "if anyone claims that something exists independently of awareness, they are full of it." He refers to awareness using the features of our current mentality.

 

and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Our chains consist solely in intention. For example, if you intend to go south, you cannot at the same time feel free to go north. That's the nature of the chain. It's self-created and has to do with your direction. But! It's also your freedom! In other words, you are free to go south. You are free to go north. In other words, each chain can be viewed as freedom and each freedom can be viewed as a restriction. For example, Buddhas are not free to have wondering and clingy minds. So being a Buddha is a kind of restriction. It's a limitation. So in Buddha's unbinding there is a different type of a bind.

 

Obviously Buddha is not going to say, "What I am doing, from a certain points of view can be said to suck donkey balls, and those points of view are just as valid and worth considering." In other words, no one is going to cut the branch they sit on. Everyone tries to put their best leg forward, so to speak. Buddha believes in what he does, believes in his intent, and thus puts his best leg forward by saying what is so good about Buddha Dharma. This is only natural. We all try to sell what we believe is good to others.

 

However, one should distinguish between what is good for some person, or what is good for some time, or what is good for some people, vs. what can at all, ever be good. Because this second consideration is limitless, but the first one is always more specific and more limited.

 

Now with regard to awareness vs. phenomenon.

 

Let's bring the breath to attention. When you feel the breath as a phenomenon, what is it you generally feel/experience? It's likely something fairly specific and localized. For example, if you bring your attention to your breath, it's not the same as your feet or your hair. So you feel something windy inside your body, something rubbing against your lungs and other airways, and maybe even feel a little windy feeling slightly outside the nostrils or something like that. This is the phenomenon of breath.

 

But what is the silent, tacit context?

 

It is this dependently originated continuum of tacit understanding about what it means for breath to be "breath":

 

There is no breath without lungs.

There are no lungs without the body.

There is no body without something outside the body.

There is no external reality without the universe.

 

In other words, when you pay attention to the breath, even though you feel something fairly specific and concrete, the tacit context is huge and includes the whole universe as you know and understand it.

 

In other words, if you feel even so much as the tip of a hair on your cheek, you feel the entire universe as you know it. And by universe I mean something very expansive, and not just something physical. I mean the universe of ideas. The universe of understood relations. And so forth. It's everything as you can know it (and beyond).

 

So there is no breath without the lungs, but there are no lungs without the chest cavity, and no chest cavity without the body and no body without the functioning heart, and yet there is a clear difference between focusing on the breath and focusing on the heart.

 

So phenomena should be distinguished from context. Context gives meaning to phenomena, and vice versa, phenomena give meaning to context, but they are not extremely similar, nor are they extremely different.

 

When you say that phenomena appear within awareness you're acknowledging limitless possibilities. If you just say "phenomena appear", then the context is not clear and the possibilities are not obvious.

 

And everything I just said is not dogma either. It's hopefully skillful for now, but not more than that. It's definitely not "how it really is" or anything like that.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

I disagree. Awareness is not simply manifestation. Awareness is manifestation that is surrounded by the unmanifest context. For example, when light manifests, darkness does not. And yet you know what light is because you know what darkness is, and so on. In other words, when you experience manifestations, you understand them in terms of what is not currently manifested. So awareness is beyond manifestation.

 

And you need to fire that teacher that sent you that email.

Edited October 27, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

What you call 5 aggregates are a feature that's particular to our current mentality. It's not something that's inherently thus. There are realms where sentient beings have no 5 aggregates. For example, formless gods realm. They don't have reified sense organs in that realm -- hence "formless".

 

The aggregates are merely in a repressed and formless state as the formless level of the 5 elements which represent the 5 senses. They take the sixth sense of consciousness as the main element and reify that as totality. It's not that the 5 aggregates still don't have sway over them, it's that they have repressed their karmic manifestation for a time being.

 

Furthermore, what would happen if your eyes were gouged out? Would the visual awareness disappear? No it wouldn't.

 

You'd still have the power of vision as such, as in subtle sight, and some blind people do in fact have awareness of this.

 

The rest I won't go into because it's pointless.

 

You need a good and realized teacher yourself as you are too proud of what you think you know.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

The aggregates are merely in a repressed and formless state as the formless level of the 5 elements which represent the 5 senses. They take the sixth sense of consciousness as the main element and reify that as totality. It's not that the 5 aggregates still don't have sway over them, it's that they have repressed their karmic manifestation for a time being.

 

This is pure bias. It's equally as valid to say that the formless realm is repressed by our obsession with the sense locations and that the formless realm has sway over us even if we do not acknowledge it. And yet Buddha didn't talk about the power of the formless realm to sway us... he chose the 5 aggregates because those are close to Gotama's and his listeners actuality at the time.

 

You can also say that there are 10 aggregates and that you're repressing the other 5. And so on.

 

I was trying to remove the shine from the Buddha, but every time I try that, you are unhappy. You really need your pet Buddha to shine and you need him to be right about everything. And you seek out teachers who best fit this immature and useless fetish of yours. By so doing you harm both yourself and those who claim to be your teachers.

 

You'd still have the power of vision as such, as in subtle sight, and some blind people do in fact have awareness of this.

 

No shit? That's kind of why I said that.

 

You need a good and realized teacher yourself as you are too proud of what you think you know.

 

Vajra, I don't need anything. I'd be happy to be a friend of a good and realized person. I am free to learn from anyone. I can learn from a stone or from a conceited asshole like you. I don't need a realized teacher to enable my learning process.

[de_paradise]

Nerds.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You can also say that there are 10 aggregates and that you're repressing the other 5. And so on.

 

LOL! Nice try... But... no. This is not how the cosmos works.

I was trying to remove the shine from the Buddha, but every time I try that, you are unhappy. You really need your pet Buddha to shine and you need him to be right about everything. And you seek out teachers who best fit this immature and useless fetish of yours. By so doing you harm both yourself and those who claim to be your teachers.

 

You have not taken refuge in the Buddha/Dharma and Sangha yet. So your conclusions are really blemished by a lack of humility towards the Buddhas from history and present.

 

I don't need a realized teacher to enable my learning process.

 

You would benefit greatly from it.

 

Taking the shine away from realized Masters who love you more than you even yet have the capacity to ascertain, who love you more than you love yourself, is the method of madmen, proud fools who think their little taste is high realization.

 

Nerds.

Yes, I realized a greater sense of joy when I accepted this fact.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Edited October 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

LOL! Nice try... But... no. This is not how the cosmos works.

 

Cosmos doesn't work in any particular way. It is empty, which means it is malleable and is in constant flux.

 

Taking the shine away from realized Masters who love you more than you even yet have the capacity to ascertain, who love you more than you love yourself

 

This is absolute, total, pure, unadulterated, unalloyed bull fucking shit. Even a great being like me, who loves all beings to some extent, is nonetheless not sentimental about it and I do not love anyone more than those same people love themselves. That's just absurd.

 

I am here for you every day. Tell your high and mighty master to join this forum and to mingle with us as one of us. We'll see how much they love us, or me in particular.

 

I can't stand this kind of bullshit. These "masters" are regular sentient beings who have, if you're lucky, contemplated and meditated enough to have something to say of interest to others with the same interest as them. They are not anything more than that. I've been kind of easy on these guys in the past, but I'm going to be more critical of them going into the future. If these people are as altruistic as they claim to be, I'm going to demand more openness and more participation from them. These people need to come down here, into the market, and level with us.

 

I come here and talk to you as one of you. I don't isolate myself and make you beat your way to my door. I don't tell you you need my teachings or else you're fucked. I would appreciate a similar attitude from these so-called "masters" and their willing peons.

 

I want to see your master come here and tell me, straight to my face, than I need him to be my master. Let's see this happen. If your master truly believes he will benefit me as a master, let him come here and declare that. That will be more proper. As a master he can assess this much better than a half-baked student such as yourself. So let's see it.

Edited October 27, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Hi GoldIsHeavy,

 

You just be nice to Chuang Tzu, Okay?

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

If by context you mean the factors and conditions that conscious phenomena/sensations are interdependent on, then yes.

 

Context goes beyond that which is obviously conscious.

 

Phenomena don't appear within awareness, phenomena is awareness.

 

That's wrong. While awareness cannot be examined as something separate from phenomena, it is wrong to say that awareness is merely the phenomena that appear.

 

I already explained why it's wrong and I am not going to repeat myself. The unmanifest is the context for the manifest. There is more to things than meets the eye.

[Marblehead]

While awareness cannot be examined as something separate from phenomena, it is wrong to say that awareness is merely the phenomena that appear.

 

The unmanifest is the context for the manifest. There is more to things than meets the eye.

 

You know, sometimes you talk like a real Taoist. Othertimes, well ...

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Context goes beyond that which is obviously conscious.

That's wrong. While awareness cannot be examined as something separate from phenomena, it is wrong to say that awareness is merely the phenomena that appear.

By 'manifestation' I'm saying, experience.

 

Awareness is the experience. The experience of a red flower is awareness. The experience of bird chirping is awareness. The experience of thought is awareness. There is no seer, thinker, feeler, separate from the flow... but rather there is just the entire flow of experiences/experiencing which dependently originates. We are sentient beings endowed with the sense organs and can experience (just using 'I' as a convention here, I don't mean to say there is a separate experiencer). Inanimate things are insentient and cannot experience.

 

And experience arises dependent with all other conditions and factors which includes non-sentient elements (i.e. the five elements, fire, water etc etc.). Water and fire itself are non-sentient, without minds, and cannot experience itself. Without sense organs what kind of experience can it have? None. But with our sense organs and with the sense objects, the sensory consciousness of having seen, felt, water and fire, etc. manifests. And there are six kinds of consciousness (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental consciousness). So the context of the manifestation is all these factors and conditions, it is not a metaphysical substance of the universe or something of that sort.

 

Under the influence of ignorance, dualistic consciousness split into subject and object arise, but with wisdom, one experiences all these as the radiance of non-dual awareness. The same non-dual manifestation wrongly perceived (i.e. dualistically, inherently) is ignorance/samsara, the same manifestation rightly perceived is wisdom/nirvana. There is no other non-dual awareness apart from these manifestations.

 

Awareness is all that is manifest, there is no other unmanifest or unborn thing transcending manifestation. This is eternalism. There can be freedom from grasping to manifestation, but there is no metaphysical essence that transcends manifestation. Rather all there is is manifestation arising moment to moment along with the context of all the factors and conditions.

 

I believe this post should also clarify rebel and thuscomeone's questions.

Edited October 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

[Marblehead]

I love this!!! We Taoists have hijacked a Buddhist thread. Hehehe.

 

Awareness is the experience. The experience of a red flower is awareness. The experience of bird chirping is awareness. The experience of thought is awareness.

 

I agree with this. Awareness happens, it is not an action performed; nor is it a goal attained.

 

There is no seer, thinker, feeler, separate from the flow... but rather there is just the entire flow of experiences/experiencing which dependently originates. We are sentient beings endowed with the sense organs and can experience (just using 'I' as a convention here, I don't mean to say there is a separate experiencer). Inanimate things are insentient and cannot experience.

 

I don't agree with this. There must be some thing (sentient being) that has realized awareness. Without a realizer things would just be.

 

Awareness is all that is manifest, there is no other unmanifest or unborn thing transcending manifestation. This is eternalism. There can be freedom from grasping to manifestation, but there is no metaphysical essence that transcends manifestation.

 

This is tricky. I agree that without the manifest there would be no awareness. There would be only Mystery with no realizer of awareness. But I suggest that there is essence in the Mystery. And I also suggest that the Mystery can be realized from the Manifest, that is, a realizer can become aware of the unmanifest (Mystery). However, the Mystery cannot be expressed in Manifest terms. That is why it is said of Tao: Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Wow, you're so hung up on arguing against essence that you can't even understand anything at all. I can fart in your face and I'll be hearing you talk about farts having no essence. You are hopeless.

 

I don't believe in any kind of essence fool. If this hasn't yet been made clear to you, it can't ever be made more clear.

 

It's annoying when you say one thing, but instead the person talking to you replies to something I didn't say.

 

Nonetheless, since you've been annoying me, I will let Buddha annoy your anti-essence dogma:

Eat this and die.

 

From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.03.than.html

The Buddha is definitely not talking about a metaphysical essence here.

[Marblehead]

It's a good thing I am not a Taoist or Buddhist or any other -ist. I just say what's on my mind and I don't try to elevate my behavior into the divine realm. If I wanted to, I could. I have the necessary discipline for that. I just don't see the point.

 

I know. But I have seen you, since I have been here, drifting away from Buddhist dogma into a more open-mindedness, well, except when you get irritated. Hehehe.

 

It is true, there is no need to label ourself. And I even think that it is best when considering those who hold to Taoist philosophy and Buddhist spirituality simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

I love this!!! We Taoists have hijacked a Buddhist thread. Hehehe.

I agree with this. Awareness happens, it is not an action performed; nor is it a goal attained.

I don't agree with this. There must be some thing (sentient being) that has realized awareness. Without a realizer things would just be.

There must be minds to be a Buddha. Inanimate trees don't attain Buddhahood. That much, I agree.

 

However there is no separate realizer apart from realisation. There is no separate seer apart from scenery.

 

There is just: the experience of scenery without a separate seer

the experience of realisation without a separate realizer

 

And hence Guru Padmasambhava says,

 

21.

 

Although there exist great many different fruits that do not agree among themselves,

the nature of the mind that is inherent awareness is (none other than) the spontaneously perfected Trikaya.

What is realized and the one who realizes it are not two (different things).

When you look for the fruit and for the one who has realized it,

since you have searched for the realizer (of the fruit) and have not found him anywhere,

at that time your fruit is exhausted and overthrown.

Thus, even though it is an end to your fruition, still this is the beginning with respect to yourself.

Both the fruition and the one who has attained the realization are found to not exist anywhere.

Without its falling under the power of attachments or aversions or of hopes and fears,

your immediate present awareness becomes spontaneously perfected inherent clarity.

Understand that within yourself the Trikaya is fully manifest.

(Therefore) this itself is the fruition of primordial Buddhahood.

This is tricky. I agree that without the manifest there would be no awareness. There would be only Mystery with no realizer of awareness. But I suggest that there is essence in the Mystery. And I also suggest that the Mystery can be realized from the Manifest, that is, a realizer can become aware of the unmanifest (Mystery). However, the Mystery cannot be expressed in Manifest terms. That is why it is said of Tao: Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak.

 

Peace & Love!

Whatever you experience before making it to be something is the mystery.

 

Guru Padmasambhava:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...eeing-with.html

 

Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:

Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.

Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.

And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,

awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.

And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),

Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;

only a naked manifest awareness is present.

(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.

It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.

It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.

However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

[Marblehead]

There must be minds to be a Buddha. Inanimate trees don't attain Buddhahood. That much, I agree.

 

Okay. We have a good start.

 

However there is no separate realizer apart from realisation. There is no separate seer apart from scenery.

 

I suggest that this happens only in very rare occasions. In Taoism this is called being totally immersed in 'wu' (the Mystery). Problem is, if we remain in total 'wu' for any length of time we die. We have to return to 'yo' (the Manifest) in order to live.

 

There is just: the experience of scenery without a separate seer

the experience of realisation without a separate realizer

 

Again, I suggest that this can be only a very temporary state. While we are walking and experiencing this 'Oneness' we walk into a telephone pole and return to the Manifest.

 

Whatever you experience before making it to be something is the mystery.

 

I will agree with this. And oftentimes, IMO, it is best to not make something of it thereby not tarnishing the experience.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Time and time again, i see people misusing terms like, 'Awareness and Non-duality'.. there is wisdom in using the common definition of words for communication..

From Wilipedia:

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

It is evident from the definition, and from direct experience, that Awareness is the quality of being aware.. there is something that must exist to possess this quality of Awareness.. my experiences suggest that Consciousness is that which directs it quality of Awareness..

 

Non-duality, is most often used to describe a condition of Unity.. true non-duality renders ALL things nonexistent, including itself.. Duality is the fundamental state of 'ISness', as it requires 'IS-NOTness' as its contrasting principle.. most descreiptions of 'non-duality' merely express the experiencer's favor with one or the other of the contrasting principles, which when experienced in immersion, 'seems' non-dual..

 

My personal experiences suggest that existence is fundamental and eternal loop of two contrasting principles.. Oneness and Many-ness.. Oneness seeking to experience itself through manifesting itself as many-ness, and.. Many-ness seeking to return to Oneness.. a mutual interdependence. Of course, this all occurs against the backdrop of 'nothingness/Void', but.. the 'Void' as some idealized state of 'Nirvana' is, basically, a conceptual rendering of Nihlism.. the irony of 'nothingness' as some desirable state, is that it requires the conceptualization of the individualized mind and a perspective that contrasts its existence..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Hi TzuJanLi,

 

I was doing very nicely with your post until I got to this:

 

 

My personal experiences suggest that existence is fundamental and eternal loop of two contrasting principles.. Oneness and Many-ness.. Oneness seeking to experience itself through manifesting itself as many-ness, and.. Many-ness seeking to return to Oneness.. a mutual interdependence. Of course, this all occurs against the backdrop of 'nothingness/Void', but.. the 'Void' as some idealized state of 'Nirvana' is, basically, a conceptual rendering of Nihlism.. the irony of 'nothingness' as some desirable state, is that it requires the conceptualization of the individualized mind and a perspective that contrasts its existence..

 

 

And especially this: Oneness seeking to experience itself through manifesting itself as many-ness ...

 

This so much sounds like suggesting that there is some form of pre-manifest consciousness. This then suggests a Creator (God) and I think that any such thought would not be consistent with Taoist of Buddhist understanding.

 

I, personally, do not hold to any such notions and even refuse to consider the concept of 'universal consciousness' because it will then suggest a e Creator essence (being).

 

I did enjoy the rest of your post though.

 

Peace & Love!

 

BTW Just curious. Did you select the "TzuJan" label because of its translation to "nature"?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Marblehead

[TzuJanLi]

Hi TzuJanLi,

 

I was doing very nicely with your post until I got to this:

And especially this: Oneness seeking to experience itself through manifesting itself as many-ness ...

 

This so much sounds like suggesting that there is some form of pre-manifest consciousness. This then suggests a Creator (God) and I think that any such thought would not be consistent with Taoist of Buddhist understanding.

 

I, personally, do not hold to any such notions and even refuse to consider the concept of 'universal consciousness' because it will then suggest a e Creator essence (being).

 

I did enjoy the rest of your post though.

 

Peace & Love!

 

BTW Just curious. Did you select the "TzuJan" label because of its translation to "nature"?

 

Greetings..

 

Hi Marbelhead: Tzu-Jan = 'spontaneous', it is so because it is so.. Li = 'random order', as in the veins in leaves or the grain in wood.. it is an eccletic reference to 'the way of Nature' in Chinese..

 

As for a 'creator', yes AND no.. there is a source, as i understand it, name it Tao if you choose.. but, as a singularity, as an undifferentiated Whole, it could only conceive of itself as, "I AM".. after an interval of 'I AMness', the Source asked the Prime question: "What AM I?".. we/us/Life/the Cosmos are the Source answering its own question.. does that imply a creator?.. or, just a natural curiousity?

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

Hi Marbelhead: Tzu-Jan = 'spontaneous', it is so because it is so.. Li = 'random order', as in the veins in leaves or the grain in wood.. it is an eccletic reference to 'the way of Nature' in Chinese..

 

Very well done!

 

As for a 'creator', yes AND no.. there is a source, as i understand it, name it Tao if you choose.. but, as a singularity, as an undifferentiated Whole, it could only conceive of itself as, "I AM".. after an interval of 'I AMness', the Source asked the Prime question: "What AM I?".. we/us/Life/the Cosmos are the Source answering its own question.. does that imply a creator?.. or, just a natural curiousity?

 

Be well..

 

Yes, I have oftentimes said something like "The Manifest is an expression of Tao." so logically it would require an essence to be able to express itself. Yes, I agree that there is a source - non-being. Sure, Tao is a good name for it. Like Lao Tzu said, "I know not its name but if I were asked to name it I would call it Great." Any name will do because no name can ever properly label non-being (singularity, Oneness, whatever).

 

No, I do not have an answer for your last two questions. (But, if "I" am able to come back after I have returned to Oneness I'll be sure to let you know.)

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Thank you, Marblehead.. and, if i should return from 'Oneness' before you, we will have interesting discussions!

 

Be well..

[C T]

Greetings..

 

Hi Marbelhead: Tzu-Jan = 'spontaneous', it is so because it is so.. Li = 'random order', as in the veins in leaves or the grain in wood.. it is an eccletic reference to 'the way of Nature' in Chinese..

 

As for a 'creator', yes AND no.. there is a source, as i understand it, name it Tao if you choose.. but, as a singularity, as an undifferentiated Whole, it could only conceive of itself as, "I AM".. after an interval of 'I AMness', the Source asked the Prime question: "What AM I?".. we/us/Life/the Cosmos are the Source answering its own question.. does that imply a creator?.. or, just a natural curiousity?

 

Be well..

Wonderful name TJL!

 

*WHAT AM I*? Reality needs a reflection to see itself, just like eyes need a mirror to see itself. When the eyes see itself in the mirror, is its reality any less real? Even the reflection exists within reality, so i do get what you have said here. Interesting...

[xabir2005]

Edited October 27, 2009 by xabir2005