Emotions are the path

[Lairg]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

the relative is merely an illusory aspect of the whole.

 

Perhaps the Absolute has purposes for manifesting the Relative.

 

Are the Absolute's purposes also illusory?

 

 

[old3bob]

the only illusion that is, is incorrect and or limited perception

Edited April 12, 2023 by old3bob

[steve]

18 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Ken Wilber suggests that the Absolute includes but supersedes the Relative. Both are always present, but the relative is merely an illusory aspect of the whole.

 

I don't know much about Ken Wilber or his teachings but this seems to me to be misleading and imprecise.

I do understand where this comes from experientially and conceptually but I don't think it's accurate or helpful to make a judgment or definition out of it, if that makes any sense. 

For me this statement is conceptualizing and comparing "the Absolute" to something 'other,' "the Relative," and is already dualistic.

To say both are always present is inaccurate and invalidating from the perspective of not having recognized or realized.

To say one supercedes the other is a discrimination and judgement which already limits and defines the undefinable.

Comparing "the Absolute" to "the whole" implies some sort of metaphysical unity which is a wrong view. 

Anyway, I'm not scholarly enough to be good at debate or an expert on the subject and it may be an unpopular perspective but on several levels this type of statement about the Absolute vs the Relative doesn't sit well with me fwiw.

[old3bob]

"The Tao gave birth to One...."  (chap 42) and the One shall also return, thus there is no divorce

[stirling]

2 hours ago, steve said:

I don't know much about Ken Wilber or his teachings but this seems to me to be misleading and imprecise.

I do understand where this comes from experientially and conceptually but I don't think it's accurate or helpful to make a judgment or definition out of it, if that makes any sense. 

For me this statement is conceptualizing and comparing "the Absolute" to something 'other,' "the Relative," and is already dualistic.

To say both are always present is inaccurate and invalidating from the perspective of not having recognized or realized.

To say one supercedes the other is a discrimination and judgement which already limits and defines the undefinable.

Comparing "the Absolute" to "the whole" implies some sort of metaphysical unity which is a wrong view. 

Anyway, I'm not scholarly enough to be good at debate or an expert on the subject and it may be an unpopular perspective but on several levels this type of statement about the Absolute vs the Relative doesn't sit well with me fwiw.

 

I "absolutely" get where you are coming from.  Here is what I mean more specifically, and I'll use Vajrayana terminology, which in many cases I prefer anyway having spent most of my practice life in Nyingma and practicing Dzogchen. 

 

Pointing out instruction casts light on Rigpa as the basis that underlies our relative experiencing in the world. We can learn to witness Rigpa in our "personal" experience and see that what we call the relative world (the appearances of cars, trees, books, cats) is still present, but empty. At this point there is still obviously the student witnessing Rigpa, and commonly having trouble seeing that this isn't a special mind "state", rather than something underlying experience. 

 

I think in THIS context Wilber's model is a good one. The student, still without insight in the nature of mind, can use this witness experience of Rigpa to better understanding that it is a quality that is ALWAYS present underneath the discursive/constructed/labelled/cognized/conceptual world they are used to inhabiting, and see that Rigpa never goes anywhere. It is ALWAYS present underneath the mind's stories about how things are. It is the "medicine" that buddhas point to. 

 

Seeing with true insight it is realized that there IS no witness, just self-less being-ness now, that the relative is none other than the absolute generating the phenomenal world, eternally NOW, the primordial awareness radiating. What was previously seen to be a world of things with intrinsic existence is instead the wholeness/emptiness of Rigpa in a play of "light and color". The relative and absolute are, and have always been the same, illusory constructs like all dualities, just as the nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya, are always the dharmakaya. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, stirling said:

Seeing with true insight it is realized that there IS no witness, just self-less being-ness now, that the relative is none other than the absolute generating the phenomenal world, eternally NOW, the primordial awareness radiating. What was previously seen to be a world of things with intrinsic existence is instead the wholeness/emptiness of Rigpa in a play of "light and color". The relative and absolute are, and have always been the same, illusory constructs like all dualities, just as the nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya, are always the dharmakaya. 

 

The relative is just the absolute viewed through the lens of ignorance. In Advaita Vedanta, the Material universe is called the body of Brahman. The information embedded in the universe (collective conscious/subconscious) is called the Golden Womb, and the seeds of causality are called "God." The individual is none other than Brahman, only deluded by ignorance into considering itself a limited being in an unlimited universe. 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

The relative is just the absolute viewed through the lens of ignorance.

 

Really, this is probably everything that needs to be said on the matter. Nice work!

 

[steve]

I think @stirling and @dwai say it better than Ken...

 

[stirling]

22 hours ago, Lairg said:

Perhaps the Absolute has purposes for manifesting the Relative.

 

Are the Absolute's purposes also illusory?

 

Hello Lairg... sorry, missed this one.

 

My answer would be that the absolute is entirely non-dual. This means that unity with the non-dual is complete presence as no-self/no-things/no space/no time. Taken in context, there is therefore no "purpose", since it implies some timeline of development from one illusory "state" to another, and no real "relative" to manifest (as Dwai and Steve will remind you  ) . 

 

Quote

The relative is just the absolute viewed through the lens of ignorance. - Dwai

 

All purpose is illusory. IMHO the relative is a mirror, and that mirror points you toward the absolute aspect of reality. "You" generate the relative, its purpose, "self", things, time, and space.

[old3bob]

.

Edited April 13, 2023 by old3bob

[Lairg]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

All purpose is illusory.

 

I suspect that the Absolute is not entirely pleased that the part of It that is you thinks that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Lairg

[Apech]

Both the absolute and the relative (or conventional) views are true.

[Lairg]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

Both the absolute and the relative (or conventional) views are true.

 

Thank goodness.   I hate to be wrong.

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Both the absolute and the relative (or conventional) views are true.

 

In my experience, the relative is a provisional truth, the absolute is the ultimate truth. One exists based on causes and conditions in this moment and is always in flux, the other is the ground of being and thus is omnipresent. Seen from the absolute, the relative has a certain "unreality" or dream-like quality. 

 

Quote

"So you should view this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, A flash of lightening in a summer cloud, A flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream." - Buddha, Diamond Sutra

 

The relative is real from the perspective of its own internally consistent logic, but unreal in that it is understood that there are no things that have intrinsic reality of their own. This includes time, self, and space.

 

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, Lairg said:

I suspect that the Absolute is not entirely pleased that the part of It that is you thinks that

 

Haha! Well... it has certainly neglected to let me know or treat me poorly for observing it, so I don't think its feelings are THAT hurt.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Both the absolute and the relative (or conventional) views are true.

Relative is relatively true, absolute is absolutely true  

[Lairg]

 

True is an odd word because it requires a reference:

 

As a verb:  ""make true in position, form, or adjustment," 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense "agreeing with a certain standard." Related: Trued; truing."

 

As a noun:  "Middle English treu, from Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.," from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith" (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws "faithful, trusty"), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast.""

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/true

 

51 minutes ago, dwai said:

Relative is relatively true, absolute is absolutely true

 

Thus I might ask:  true/faithful to what?

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Lairg

[Ajay0]

I had come across some sayings of Dr. David Hawkins with respect to emotions and the numerous thoughts they induce. I had put them in the quotes section here some months back. Press on ' Ajay0 replied to a topic'. 

 

 

I think meditating on emotions can have a force-multiplier effect as they are more subtle and basic than the thought process. I think it is very important to emphasize this. 

 

Rather than trying to stop emotions which may lead to its persistence, I just try to be aware of them and this gradually dilutes them along with the numerous thoughts that follow in the wake of the emotion.

[old3bob]

.

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by old3bob

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

True is an odd word because it requires a reference:

 

As a verb:  ""make true in position, form, or adjustment," 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense "agreeing with a certain standard." Related: Trued; truing."

 

As a noun:  "Middle English treu, from Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.," from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith" (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws "faithful, trusty"), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast.""

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/true

 

 

Thus I might ask:  true/faithful to what?

 

 

 

For example, you see a lake shimmering in the distance on a hot summer day. Given only that context and conditions, is it not “true” that you see a shimmering body of water?

 

Until you investigate and realize there was no water at all, it was just a play of hot air and refraction of light, called a mirage. So that is also true. One could say the first was a “relative truth”, and the latter, “an absolute truth”. 

[silent thunder]

The conversation is bringing to mind a Druidic axiom I encountered in my early studies that 35 years later, still resonates.  Thanks to all contributing, this was a wonderful way to start my day.

 

A human is always three things, simultaneously.

A human is what she thinks she is.

She is what others think she is.

 

And she is what she really is.

 

 

 

The first two seem to me to apply to the realm of senses and form, and are relative and subject to and subjective of our current perceptual apparatus and process (whatever species that may be), conditioning and personal/special limitations.  It seems we always experience life from the center of our own awareness, hence why Samsara and Maya are so convincingly, seemingly 'real'. 

 

The latter represents the ground state of The Absolute and encompasses all that we cannot put into words, all that lies beyond the ken of our perception, beyond the relative speaking and word based conceptual thinking mind.  It 'is what is', and may or may not ever be engaged by the relative; yet it seemingly arises tzujan and abides of itself, and is the spring from which the relative is dependent. 

 

It is True Awareness to my small awareness.

 

Perception and 'the tao that can be spoken of' seems to be the relative process of awareness sifting the absolute through the filter of our experience at the center of our individual awareness.  It is elevant only to the modeling process of the perceiving apparatus in the moment, in whatever form that awareness is streaming through currently.

 

Of late, the 'tao that cannot be spoken' is Pure Raw Awareness, expansive, penetrating, all encompassing... or these words seem the most apt concept for my relative mind to apply to try and describe what is by its nature, indescribable.  What the Absolute may be. 

 

Always challenging to engage in speaking about such matters to my small mind.  I'm re-minded of two other sayings that resonate.

 

“The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience, which in its very nature transcends linguistics.”
-- D.T. Suzuki

 

As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw.    ~Shunryu Suzuki

 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

The great existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre walked into a Paris street cafe and sat down at an empty table near the window.  It was a typical spring day in France's capital and so the air was filled with smell of burning trash and tear gas.  Out in the street he observed groups of youths dressed in black throwing stones and bottles at huddles of police crouching behind their shields.  At that moment the waiter appeared and bowed solemnly to his famous client.

"What would you like today, M. Sartre?" he asked.

"I would like a coffee but no cream," replied the sagacious guest.

The waiter bowed again and sped away.

Outside a water cannon was dispersing the demonstrators but with only partial success.  And in a short moment the breathless waiter reappeared.  Bowed low, and said.

"I'm so sorry, Sir, but we are completely out of cream."

"In that case, " replied the great man " I shall have coffee without milk."

 

 

[steve]

I find that in trying to discuss or describe the Absolute, the less I say about it the closer I am to the truth.

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Maybe talking about the Absolute is a little like sexual desire.  The conventional view is that sexual desire is something to be desired, but those who have spent time contemplating such desire with naked awareness assure me that it's actually suffering.  People love to debate the nature of the Absolute, almost as much as they seek to feel sexual desire.  And yet I sense a strain of unsatisfactoriness that runs through much (not all) such discussion.  Could it be that neither activity is what it's cracked up to be?

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Maybe talking about the Absolute is a little like sexual desire.  The conventional view is that sexual desire is something to be desired, but those who have spent time contemplating such desire with naked awareness assure me that it's actually suffering.  People love to debate the nature of the Absolute, almost as much as they seek to feel sexual desire.  And yet I sense a strain of unsatisfactoriness that runs through much (not all) such discussion.  Could it be that neither activity is what it's cracked up to be?

Discussion is necessary for realization. But more internal discussion is needed - aka contemplation. If we get caught up in desire to “win” we will lose