Sign in to follow this  
BigSkyDiamond

what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Lairg said:

The Absolute has always retreated before me.

 

I conclude that the Absolute is a label for the limit of human perception.

 

It is and it isn't, but yes, good point. I'd say it is at the limit of seeing as a "person". The Absolute is seeing as awareness.... being-ness of unity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stirling said:

So you are positing a 3rd "location" for special categories of "things". Where would this be exactly? In my experience all of that fits into either the Absolute or the Relative. Anything that isn't manifested is a construction of the mind.

 

What is meant here by  "anything that isn't manifested."  Does that mean not in physical form? What are the parameters for "manifested."  for my understanding.  Thank you.

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

 

17 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

There is nothing beyond the Absolute but we can experience whatever we experience as the absolute without the density and incompatibility and limitations of "the universe and everything in it."

 

Playing in a different sandbox.  With different parameters than the parameters that restrict limit define and confine the "universe and everything in it" (time, space, form, density)

 

at the level of the human, a person has free choice what to experience, within the limitations of being a physical human.  Those limitations and parameters which  restrict the choices available for a human include time, space, and form within a dense physical universe.  

 

at the level of the Absolute there is also free choice (through intention) what to "experience" however Beingness is also able to set the limiting or defining parameters for an experience.  The Absolute can "experience" without the specific parameters that confine "the universe and everything in it" (without time space form density).  With different parameters.  or with no parameters.

 

the only "real" is the Absolute.  all "experience" that flows from the Absolute (intention of Beingness outpictured) is "not real" in the sense that it is an illusory construct.  Is  that how "relative" is being used in this conversation?  if so then i agree.  (I tend to think in terms of what is "real" compared to what is an "illusory construct.")  The attributes or characteristics determine what is "real" (Beingness, the Absolute, Source) so unborn unformed uncreated unchanging unlimited always was always will be no form no space no time.  (But use of the word "real" can cause confusion in discussion so that is not always a helpful word for me to use for clarifying.")  I think i am seeing now how "relative" is being used and yes i agree.

 

for instance in the human framework of reincarnation and karma it is seen as a repetitive cycle, but there is a way to step off that cycle and stop reincarnating at all and completely exit the "universe and everything in it."  It is stepping outside those parameters (time space form) entirely never to return (to the universe and everything in it).  The "universe and everything in it" is recognized as illusory.  I stop experiencing that.  Instead i experience something else.  with different parameters or with no parameters.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

What is meant here by  "anything that isn't manifested."  Does that mean not in physical form? What are the parameters for "manifested."  for my understanding.  Thank you.

 

Anything that isn't present in this moment is a construction of the mind. Anything that isn't manifest in this moment is an just a thought, including here/there, past/future, "self"/other, and any mental designation or duality. 

 

21 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

at the level of the human, a person has free choice what to experience, within the limitations of being a physical human.  Those limitations and parameters which  restrict the choices available for a human include time, space, and form within a dense physical universe.

 

at the level of the Absolute there is also free choice (through intention) what to "experience" however Beingness is also able to set the limiting or defining parameters for an experience.  The Absolute can "experience" without the specific parameters that confine "the universe and everything in it" (without time space form density).  With different parameters.  or with no parameters.

 

Reality is what is happening in this moment. We can have intention around what we think we want to happen next, but that intention doesn't arise from a "self" it arises from the Absolute, like everything else. Free will is a delusion. Who is there to own it? Also, free will implies a timeline, a plan, an "intelligence" or something with continuity. While there is a "flow" of change, a moment before or after something happens is conceptual. This is the true value our meditation practice (depending on what it is) - making it possible to examine these things carefully. 

 

21 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

the only "real" is the Absolute.  all "experience" that flows from the Absolute (intention of Beingness outpictured) is "not real" in the sense that it is an illusory construct.  Is  that how "relative" is being used in this conversation?  if so then i agree.  (I tend to think in terms of what is "real" compared to what is an "illusory construct.")  The attributes or characteristics determine what is "real" (Beingness, the Absolute, Source) so unborn unformed uncreated unchanging unlimited always was always will be no form no space no time.  (But use of the word "real" can cause confusion in discussion so that is not always a helpful word for me to use for clarifying.")  I think i am seeing now how "relative" is being used and yes i agree.

 

In my experience I'd say that the Relative has a provisional existence based on arising and passing causes and conditions. What is illusory about it is that any of it has it's own intrinsic reality (as a separate thing). Even this, though, is a language construct that doesn't really match the reality of what the Absolute is. Another attempt: Reality is the experience of this moment... existing even without the labels of Absolute or Relative, or any other label, concept, or structure in time or space, void of any objects that have their own existence, etc. etc. etc. It is exceptionally hard to discuss or point to except directly... wordlessly, as a teacher would to a student under the right conditions and with the student having a certain fairly easy to attain level of meditative practice with which to experientially examine this for themselves.

 

21 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

for instance in the human framework of reincarnation and karma it is seen as a repetitive cycle, but there is a way to step off that cycle and stop reincarnating at all and completely exit the "universe and everything in it."  It is stepping outside those parameters (time space form) entirely never to return (to the universe and everything in it).  The "universe and everything in it" is recognized as illusory.  I stop experiencing that.  Instead i experience something else.  with different parameters or with no parameters.

 

Reincarnation and karma happen to a person. It is possible to step off of both of those with the completed realization of no-self. It isn't so much stepping out of time/space/form/"self" but seeing that they there were always just concocted intellectual designations/delusions. It is just a simple perspective shift. What is experienced after that shift is the same "universe" or whatever you want to call this moment, but without those designations/delusions being believed or seen as real in any way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kobun Chino Otogawa, on the "Heart Sutra":

 

We have the five skandhas explained in this sutra: Form, feeling
or sensation, perception, impulses, consciousness. They
are elements of human existence, explained differently from
present-day psychology. At the very beginning of the sutra
are these words: “All five skandhas are empty.” Later
the five senses are listed: “eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body,”
plus “mind,” which is the aggregate of the senses. These five
skandas are the vehicle of enlightenment. Or they can be expressed
as mind and body. “Shariputra, form does not differ
from emptiness. . .” is a more detailed explanation of “All five
skandas are empty.”

("Kobun's Talks on the Heart Sutra", edited by Angie Boussevain and Judy Cosgrove)

 

 

That last sentence stands out to me:  "“Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness. . .” is a more detailed explanation of “All five skandas are empty.”"

 

Gautama's way of living included the contemplation of impermanence, as a part of the mindfulness of the state of mind:

 

(One) makes up one’s mind:
 

Contemplating impermanence I shall breathe in. Contemplating impermanence I shall breathe out.

Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe in. Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe out.

Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.

Contemplating renunciation I shall breathe in. Contemplating renunciation I shall breathe out.

(SN 54.1, tr. Pali Text Society vol V pp 275-276)

 

 

The contemplation of impermanence is exactly the contemplation of the "five skandas":

 

“And how, bhikkhus, is the perception of impermanence developed and cultivated so that it eliminates all sensual lust, eliminates all lust for existence, eliminates all ignorance, and uproots all conceit ‘I am’? ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away’: that is how the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated so that it eliminates all sensual lust, eliminates all lust for existence, eliminates all ignorance, and uproots all conceit ‘I am.’”

(SN 22.102; Aniccasaññāsutta, tr. Bhikkhu Bodhi)

 


Of course, the Heart Sutra goes on:

 

There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance... neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment. With nothing to attain, a bodhisattva relies on prajña paramita.

("Heart of Great Perfect Wisdom Sutra", S. F. Zen Center edition)

 

 

"Prajna paramita" apparently means "perfection of wisdom" in Sanskrit, and Gautama does speak of a gnosis, a "profound knowledge" or "intuitive wisdom" that he himself gained through the experience of various psychic phenomena in the fourth concentration.

 

My take on the four "contemplations" of the state of mind that were a part of Gautama's way of living:

 

When I reflect on impermanence, I generally think about death, but Gautama spoke more broadly about the impermanence of any notion of self, and about how grasping after any notion of self is identically suffering.
 

With regard to death, Gautama stated that those who correctly practice “mindfulness of death” apply his teachings “for the interval that it takes to swallow having chewed up one morsel of food”, or “for the interval that it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe in after breathing out”.
 

Contemplation on impermanence in any form engenders a dispassion toward “the pleasant, the painful, and the neither-pleasant-nor-painful” of feeling, giving rise to the second element of Gautama’s “mindfulness of mental states”.
 

I take the “cessation” of the third element to be the cessation of volitive action, the action invoked by determinate thought. There are other cessations Gautama cited, each in connection with a particular state of concentration, but they only have significance in the larger context of the cessation of volitive action.
 

The “renunciation” of the fourth element I would say refers to the abandonment of any notion of “I am the doer, mine is the doer” with regard to action of speech, body, or mind.

 

(The Early Record)
 

 

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"--doesn't mean much to me, and I don't contemplate the five skandas often, but when I do, I end up with the interval that it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe in after breathing out (and a Dos Equis?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Edited by Mark Foote
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

That last sentence stands out to me:  "“Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness. . .” is a more detailed explanation of “All five skandas are empty.”"

-Kobun

 

It is worth pointing out that, while this is true, the reverse isn't. The early Buddhist Tripitaka teachings work fine in Mahayana teaching, but the later Emptiness teachings point at something wider in scope than the early Buddhist teachings do.

 

Emptiness conceptually doesn't really feature in the early Buddhist works, EXCEPT possibly (depending on your opinion) in a few places by association, like the the Bahiya Sutta:

 

Quote

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.


"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." - Buddha, Bahiya Sutta

 

The Buddha's instruction is similar to the instruction of shikantaza in Soto Zen. There is merely awareness resting in it's own nature. This is an instruction to point at emptiness of "self" and other. Most of the early Buddhist teachings only point to emptiness of self (or "no-self").

 

"Emptiness" teachings are a feature of Mahayana and Vajrayana trainings, which the Heart Sutra is a major fixture.

 

Yes, I recall that you aren't a fan of the Bahiya Sutta. :) I am!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2025 at 9:49 AM, stirling said:

Reincarnation and karma happen to a person. It is possible to step off of both of those with the completed realization of no-self. It isn't so much stepping out of time/space/form/"self" but seeing that they there were always just concocted intellectual designations/delusions. It is just a simple perspective shift. What is experienced after that shift is the same "universe" or whatever you want to call this moment, but without those designations/delusions being believed or seen as real in any way. 

 

Thank you for the detailed response and in-depth exploration and conversation.  This is much appreciated :)  I am responding separately for different points raised in the post.

 

regarding bold above, a person can accept that form is not real "intellectually" at a surface or partial level.  But as long as they are still inhabiting a physical human body,  then it has not been put into practice at a deeper or complete level.  That is the proof and evidence and litmus test that the belief still remains that form is real.

 

it's like the litmus test for karma, if a person is still in a physical body or keeps coming back into a physical body, then there is unfinished business.    Same for Awakening.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2025 at 9:49 AM, stirling said:

Anything that isn't present in this moment is a construction of the mind. Anything that isn't manifest in this moment is an just a thought, including here/there, past/future, "self"/other, and any mental designation or duality.   Reality is what is happening in this moment. 

 

And my observation is that the table I am sitting at now is every bit as much a thought, as the table in my memory that i gave away 19 years ago.  

 

Also, since there is no time, then not only is there no past or future, there is also no present.  There is no "this moment." Because there is no time.  For the same reason that the "thoughts" about the past and future are "mental constructs" so too is "in this moment" also a thought and a mental construct.   Everything that is "manifest in this moment" is also just a thought and a mental construct.

 

Given that form is not real, then it follows that form is not real in past, present, or future.

Given that there is no time, then there is no past, future, or present.

 

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Given that form is not real

 

Do you contend that nothing is real?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

in the meantime which way to the kitchen, I'm hungry,

 

staircase.jpg.35ce35281e5ecf16e60a0895f0adce79.jpg

 

btw when will be done with digging  ditch's and falling into them?

 

Edited by old3bob
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steve said:

Do you contend that nothing is real?

 

if we are saying that the Absolute is real, and everything else (the relative) is a mental construct with no more substance than a thought, then these are the attirubtes or criteria i am using.

 

Absolute:  unborn, unformed, uncreated, no beginning no end, no time no space no form, always was and always will be,  unlimited unchanging

Relative: formed, born and dies, created, changing has a begninnnig and an end, time space form, finite

 

At the level of the Relative and from that perspective, for a physical human being, yes, time space and form are "real."  At the level of the Absolute and from that perspective, no, time space and form are not real.

 

in answer to the question asked, what is real is the Absolute.  all else is a mental construct.  Just like pure awareness is the only thing that is real, and everything else that is seen heard thought felt perceived is not real.  All perception is distorted.  Isn't that what pure awareness is all about?

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as in this:

 

In Buddhism, called the deepest dimension of Reality, the “Unborn” or the “Uncreated.” In his profound teaching of meditation, the direct experience of this depth dimension was the source of spiritual liberation. In the Khuddaka Nikaya (Udana 8:3),  Shakyamuni declared:

 

“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore there is an escape from the born, originated, created, formed.”

 

from article by Andrew Cohen

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

And my observation is that the table I am sitting at now is every bit as much a thought, as the table in my memory that i gave away 19 years ago.

 

And if you pick up the gun on the table, point it at your temple and pull the trigger, will the results be a "real"?

 

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. They exist together. It isn't that the table or gun aren't real, it is that they don't truly exist as things that have a reality of their own. 

 

2 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Also, since there is no time, then not only is there no past or future, there is also no present.  There is no "this moment." Because there is no time.  For the same reason that the "thoughts" about the past and future are "mental constructs" so too is "in this moment" also a thought and a mental construct.   Everything that is "manifest in this moment" is also just a thought and a mental construct.

 

There IS time, after a fashion. There is this moment, evolving an changing constantly. It is the past and future that are illusory, ONCE YOU CAN SEE THEM. Without insight, this is just a thought experiment. 

 

2 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Given that form is not real, then it follows that form is not real in past, present, or future.

Given that there is no time, then there is no past, future, or present.

 

Form IS real. It is where emptiness appears. The PROOF that form exists and has a reality is actually the emptiness that can be seen in it.  It is the idea of things with a separate reality from each other that is the delusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stirling said:

It isn't that the table or [apple] aren't real, it is that they don't truly exist as things that have a reality of their own

 

I chanaged gun to apple.  it seems to me in the above that "aren't real" is saying the same thing as "don't truly exist as things that have a reality of their own."  I am not understanding how the two phrases above are any different in what they are expressing.

 

 

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

They exist together. ...

Form IS real. It is where emptiness appears. The PROOF that form exists and has a reality is actually the emptiness that can be seen in it.  It is the idea of things with a separate reality from each other that is the delusion. 

 

In Udana 8:3 Shakyamuni expresses "Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore there is an escape from the born, originated, created, formed.”  So no they do not always exist together.  Because we can escape.  If they were always together, a means for escape from form would not be indicated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2025 at 9:49 AM, stirling said:

We can have intention around what we think we want to happen next, but that intention doesn't arise from a "self" it arises from the Absolute, like everything else. Free will is a delusion. Who is there to own it? Also, free will implies a timeline, a plan, an "intelligence" or something with continuity

 

The Absolute has continuity. 

 

At the relative human level we do have free choice and we use it daily.  We choose what shirt to wear and whether to have fried egg or oatmeal for breakfast.  What is it in you that chooses to meditate this week instead of choosing to go bobsledding this week?

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Thank you for the detailed response and in-depth exploration and conversation.  This is much appreciated :)  I am responding separately for different points raised in the post.

 

_/\_  :)

 

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

regarding bold above, a person can accept that form is not real "intellectually" at a surface or partial level. 

 

Which is useful, but not as a belief. It can actually stand in the way of realization. 

 

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

But as long as they are still inhabiting a physical human body,  then it has not been put into practice at a deeper or complete level.  That is the proof and evidence and litmus test that the belief still remains that form is real.

 

Then the Buddha wasn't enlightened! 

 

There was a point early on after I had insight where I considered the very same thing. What is eventually realized is that it isn't a PERSON that becomes "enlightened" is in fact "enlightenment" itself. Enlightenment wakes up to it's own nature. It is a change in perspective, where there is no longer seeing "self" as a "person" or body. It is actually irrelevant how awareness sees the world, after what is commonly thought to be approximately 10 years the identification with a "self" entirely drops away. This doesn't mean that anything in experience changes. Stirling still drives a car and prefers one ice cream over another. 

 

This is why:

 

Quote

There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance... neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment. - Heart Sutra, Buddha

 

There is the dying of a body (perhaps) but nothing to die since what the "I" is exists as simple awareness, no longer identified as a body. 

 

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

it's like the litmus test for karma, if a person is still in a physical body or keeps coming back into a physical body, then there is unfinished business.    Same for Awakening.

 

I'll leave you with this:

 

Quote

The Buddha said, “Subhuti, someone who sets forth on the bodhisattva path should think this thought: ‘In the realm of unconditional nirvana, I shall liberate all beings. And while I thus liberate beings, not a single being is liberated.’ And how so? Subhuti, if the thought of a being occurs to a bodhisattva, they cannot be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ Neither can someone to whom the thought of a life or the thought of a soul occurs be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ And why not? Subhuti, there is no such dharma as ‘setting forth on the bodhisattva path. - Diamond Sutra, Verse 17, Buddha

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

_/\_  :)

 

Which is useful, but not as a belief. It can actually stand in the way of realization. 

 

Then the Buddha wasn't enlightened! 

 

There was a point early on after I had insight where I considered the very same thing. What is eventually realized is that it isn't a PERSON that becomes "enlightened" is in fact "enlightenment" itself. Enlightenment wakes up to it's own nature. It is a change in perspective, where there is no longer seeing "self" as a "person" or body. It is actually irrelevant how awareness sees the world, after what is commonly thought to be approximately 10 years the identification with a "self" entirely drops away. This doesn't mean that anything in experience changes. Stirling still drives a car and prefers one ice cream over another. 

 

This is why:

 

There is the dying of a body (perhaps) but nothing to die since what the "I" is exists as simple awareness, no longer identified as a body. 

 

I'll leave you with this:

 

 

well baked cookie....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

The Absolute has continuity.

 

It's continuity is it's unity and lack of dualities. 

 

2 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

At the relative human level we do have free choice and we use it daily.  We choose what shirt to wear and whether to have fried egg or oatmeal for breakfast. 

 

If the "self" as a separate construct is a delusion, then who is choosing? Even in the relative there is no free will. If we choose to believe science there was a big bang. The conditions for all interactions were laid out the moment that singularity collapsed. It has been proven that we begin to move long before we decide on an action... an order of almost a 3rd of a second if I remember correctly. There has already been plenty of cold water thrown on free will. 

 

2 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

What is it in you that chooses to meditate this week instead of choosing to go skiing this week?

 

In my experience? Everything... Unity. Causes and conditions that cover this moment. A billion tiny moving parts interacting at levels way below my ability to even see or understand or apprehend them. Pick whichever ones you like, not that it matters. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not a trick question. 

 

it is just recognizing that as humans we use free choice every day. That is my observation.  I can and do change my mind several times about which pair of Doc Marten boots to wear on my daily walk in nature. That is me using my free choice.  I don't engage in abstruse philosophical pondering on this,  i just verify it for myself in practice.   

 

but we can agree to disagree, that's fine too.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stirling said:

If the "self" as a separate construct is a delusion, then who is choosing? Even in the relative there is no free will

 

My own repeated observations indicate that the human format is used  by a wide variety of spirits.  This is because the human format has extensive cosmic functionality - when properly refined and aligned.  (Enlightenment is the usual entry price)

 

The wide variety of spirits using the human format (or the human race) have purposes ranging from extreme yin to extreme yang.  

 

When I follow those purposes to their sources, many can be found anchored within the Absolute/Dao.  It seems that the Dao is not purposeless - and hence many in human format may be swept into the complex outworking of the Dao.

 

That is good because few humans wish to be purposeless

 

 

Who can test the above?   What about a vote?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lairg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question whether purpose is needed. 
Where is that written or required and on what authority? 

The Absolute just is.  It is enough to just be.

 

Purpose is no different than job title, or career, or family role, or government position.  It is not the essence of who i am.  It is something i may put on and take off like an overcoat but it is not essential to me nor does it accurately reflect the truth of who i am.

 

Someone actually told me that recently.  They said, "You don't need to DO anything."  This made me very happy, it was like hearing a clear bell that resonated deep within.

 

I AM is enough.   for me anyway.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lairg said:

When I follow those purposes to their sources, many can be found anchored within the Absolute/Dao.  It seems that the Dao is not purposeless - and hence many in human format may be swept into the complex outworking of the Dao.

 

Yes, that is certainly the case.  Many are swept into the complexities of the 10,000 things.

For me at this point, the return trip home has greater appeal.  but that's just me.

 

The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to two.
Two gives birth to three.
And three gives birth to the ten thousand things

   ---from chapter 42, Tao Te Ching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

the return trip home has greater appeal.

 

In my youth I worked as a casual laborer.   It was "job and finish".  So we worked hard to go home early

 

As below, so above

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the working hard is to avoid the distractions that would delay returning home.

for me that is not being attached  (i quite like the phrase that was used earlier) "to the complexities of the ten thousand things."  (technically it is not "working hard" at all, but rather a non-doing; resting in pure awareness) 

 

in every place in my life, it feels better for me, when things are simple.  Rather than when they are complex.    i think i remember hearing somewhere way back when, that even the greatest wisom is simple. (not easy, but simple).  and for that reason we may tend to either overlook it or reject it.   .  complexity makes things harder for me, rather than easier.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this