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

[Mark Foote]

24 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

a.  use your words please.  what is it that you are trying to say or express?  

 

b. and since your own posts often have a level of shall we say detail specificity and complexity to them, then what might your reaction or impression be of someone remarking to you "Earth to Mark Foote....Earth to Mark Foote...come in please, Mark"   as you discussed this or that fine point or nuance of your particular area of interest?  

 

 

 

 

"just like  clouds are not needed to see the sky  (outer sight of physical human)"

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

24 minutes ago, dwai said:

They are not distinct from each other

we see the Absolute is always present. 

 

yes, the Absolute is always present.  However the Absolute has very different attributes and characteristics than that which is bound by time space form.

 

Edited Monday at 09:34 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Lairg]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

Purpose is a thought constructed in your mind, much like human rights, and free will are.

 

There are many higher planes than the mental

 

 

[Cobie]

 

36 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… 

 

Non-duality is 無極 (wu2 ji2) Wuji; no divide.

Duality is 太極 (tai4 ji2) Taiji; big divide.

 

‘One’ is 道  (dao4) Dao. 
Beginning with the DDJ, in early Daoism, ‘One’ 一  (yi1), is a synonym for Dao.

 

The Absolute is 自然 (zi4 ran2) Ziran; unknowable

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:51 PM by Cobie

[Mark Foote]

39 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

In Advaita Vedanta, this "Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is Samsara" is presented as follows -

 

Asti, Bhati, Priyam, Nama and Rupa. 

 

Asti - Being

Bhati - Shining

Priyam - Love

Nama - Name

Rupa - Form

 

While ordinarily we only see Nama and Rupa, the wise also see the Asti, Bhati and Priyam aspect of phenomena. If we stick with only names and forms, there is impermanence. Once we see the Absolute Consciousness shining forth as Existence (Being), Consciousness (Shining) and Bliss (Love) through that impermance, we see the Absolute is always present. 

 

I guess the assumption is that whether we suffer in samsara or experience freedom from suffering in nirvana, it's really the same thing because "the Absolute is always present"? 

In the first four sermon volumes of the Pali Canon, the origin of suffering is often quoted as:

 

From delusion as condition, volitional formations (come to be); from volitional formations as condition, consciousness; from consciousness as condition, name-and-form; from name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; from the six sense bases as condition, contact; from contact as condition, feeling; from feeling as condition craving; from craving as condition, clinging; from clinging as condition, existence; from existence as condition, birth; from birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

(SN 12.1, tr. Sujato Bhikkyu)

 

The Pali that Sujato translates as "volitional formations" is translated by Woodward for the Pali Text Society as "activities", and the volitive activities of speech, deed, and thought are said by Gautama to cease in the states of concentration. Nevertheless, Gautama insisted that the attainment of the gnosis that constituted enlightenment could not be had through concentration alone.

 

"Name and form" is a bit amorphous to me, except as a consequence of consciousness, that in turn leads to intent in feeling and perceiving in the six sense bases (five and the mind).

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:50 PM by Mark Foote

[BigSkyDiamond]

14 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Duality is 太極 (tai4 ji2) Taiji; big divide

Non-duality is 無極 (wu2 ji2) Wuji; no divide

The One is 道  (dao4) Dao
Beginning with the DDJ, in early Daoism, ‘One’ 一  (yi1), is a synonym for Dao.

 

The Absolute is 自然 (zi4 ran2) Ziran; unknowable

 

 

but it says Dao begets One.

which indicates a distinction between Dao and the One.

 

also, if one accepts the attributes of the Dao to include "unborn" 

then it follows that the Dao is unborn; and the One is born.

 

and yes i agree that the Absolute is unknowable within our limited human understatnd. Which is why the attributes are usually conveyed by what it is NOT rather than what it IS.  for instance: unborn, unformed, uncreated, unchanging, indivisible, no beginning, no end, no time, no space, no form.   (And we can recognize and access the part within us that is a spark of the Absolute) (Divine spark).  

 

Other paths also express that same (or similar) list of attributes (for example Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism) 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:57 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

4 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

but it says Dao begets One …

No, it does not. It says 道 生 一 (dao4 sheng1 yi1) ‘Dao is One’.

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:57 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

50 minutes ago, Cobie said:

No, it does not. It says 道 生 一 (dao4 sheng1 yi1) ‘Dao is One’.

 

So then it is a difference in translation and interpretation.  I accept that.  There are a whole bunch of translations which use "Dao begets one."  So some of the differences in interpretation might reflect:

 

"Dao is one" focuses on a fundamental undifferentiated source, a unity from which everything flows or emerges.  While "Dao begets one" emphasizes a creative origin that "backs it up further" to a stage even prior to that.  

 

For me, the interpretation that resonates is the Dao begets one.  (Primarily because it corresponds exactly to the process of tzim tzum).   As always i appreciate having the voice and learning and expertise showing the actual Chinese and actual characters.  Thank you.

 

Edited Monday at 10:47 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

2 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

So then it is a difference in translation.  

 not “different”; wrong. See 太一 生水 (tai4 yi1 sheng1 shui3)  Great One gave birth to water 

Characters and translations at: https://www.tao-te-king.org/taiyi_shengshui.htm  

 

 

 

[Cobie]

 

22 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

…the One is born …

 

No. The One (= Dao) is unborn.

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:14 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

20 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… the Absolute is unknowable … the attributes are usually conveyed by what it is NOT rather than what it IS  …

 

自然 is not defined apophatic neither. Unknowable is unknowable. Nothing can be said about it. Everyone can make up their own ideas about it.

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:12 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

16 minutes ago, Cobie said:

自然 is not defined apophatic neither. Unknowable is unknowable. Nothing can be said about it. Everyone can make up their own ideas about it.

 

Yes, that is certainly the case.  For me however,  in the interpretation that I choose,  and in formulating and clarifying my own beliefs and framework,  I do take into account and it carries significant weight for me,  that some of the oldest traditions all have a strikingly similar list of attributes, for Brahman (Hindu) and God (Judaism) and mentioned in Buddhism:

 

unborn, unformed, uncreated, unchanging, no space, no time, no form, no beginning, no end, indivisible.

 

(those with knowledge and learning from other paths can share if desired a list from those, or indicate if there is none.)

Edited Monday at 10:28 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

7 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

.. my own beliefs  …

Anyone can believe what they like.  

 

Edited Monday at 10:29 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

 

16 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Anyone can believe what they like. 

 

yes, that is certainly true.  

always good to be aware of this here on Dao Bums!

Edited Monday at 10:45 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

I wholeheartedly recognize that translations are fraught with, well, mistranslations or misrepresentations which then yes get propagated and spread widely.

 

There is a book in Judaism that is something like 72 chapters long.  The subject matter for that quite lengthy book is  the first three words of Torah  in Hebrew.  These  three words have a specific meaning in Hebrew, but when the sages were ordered to translate the Torah into Greek for the Egyptian king Ptolemy (the translation known as the Septuagint), the sages changed the opening verse to read differently.  This was done intentionally.

 

Edited Monday at 11:00 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

i also don't think that the wisdom and teachings left to us by sages in this or that tradition are idle words or intellectual fluff or empty dogma.  My observation and experience is that holy books can provide not only a depth of understanding, but also deliver a transmission that heightens our sensitivity and makes us more receptive in ways that bear fruit in our practice and in our daily life.

 

it's not one or the other (study or practice).  both are useful.

[Cobie]

31 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

yes, that is certainly true.  

always good to be aware of this here on Dao Bums!

My only interest is the Laozi nearest to the time of writing, and all my answers are based in that. I have no interest in the living religion Daoism.

 

Edited Monday at 11:15 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

 

Quote

… Septuagint), the sages changed the opening verse to read differently.  This was done intentionally.

 

That’s a very poignant example.  I would love to hear what the original opening verse is. Maybe better in a separate thread though, in the Abrahamic subforum.

 

Edited Monday at 11:19 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

22 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

I wholeheartedly recognize that translations are fraught with, well, mistranslations or misrepresentations which then yes get propagated and spread widely.

 

Yes. Also there is also a natural development in understanding in living religions. I have no interest in further later Daoism, which often has different ideas. Anyone can pick and chose what to take an interest in, what to believe in. 

 

Edited Monday at 11:22 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

10 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… it's not one or the other (study or practice).  both are useful.

 

I agree.

 

 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

yes, the Absolute is always present.  However the Absolute has very different attributes and characteristics than that which is bound by time space form.

 

There is nothing apart from the absolute. What you see bound by time and space are just appearances 

[BigSkyDiamond]

.

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

@BigSkyDiamond On reflection, I should have qualified my answers. Always better to write ‘imo’ than ‘no, that’s wrong’.  My apologies. 

[BigSkyDiamond]

no problemo.  you are still my bestie. ❤️

[BigSkyDiamond]

58 minutes ago, dwai said:

There is nothing apart from the absolute. What you see bound by time and space are just appearances 

 

bold above i agree.  100%    Yes.

time space and form are illusory mental constructs, and have no more substance than a dream or thought.

 

here it is again.  yes, this (below).  

This is exactly what I have been attempting to convey.  These two posts here just say it a lot more succinctly 

Thank you.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 6:30 PM, dwai said:

 The truth is that there is only consciousness/awareness — everything else is an appearance within it. 
You are the source itself — as is everyone else