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

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

thank you for the response and references. This is helpful.  I appreciate it.

 

My pleasure. _/\_

 

17 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

The part that jumps out at me is this:

 

Does this not also include form, i.e that which is physical?  whether that is the physical human body or the universe and everything in it.  Doesn't it follow also that too is a mental construction?   if space and  time  are "illusory" "a mental construct" then isn't form also illusory since form is reliant upon space.  without time and space there can be no form.

 

that is what naturally follows for me, and what i bump up against.  It doesn't bother me,though, i am fine with it.  

 

Duality is a persistent illusion. When you wake up, there it is. When you dream, there it is. When seen from enlightened mind... well, you get the idea. There is no "other" place enlightenment takes you... what is seen in this moment is reality. Enlightenment looks like this moment.

 

Anything that you might think of as having its own, intrinsic (basic or unique characteristic of a person or thing) being-ness or separateness from other imagined things is illusory. Nothing exists separately. All things that appear separate of any kind, including places, times or dates, or beings and objects are ultimately not real in THAT way. Not real as a separate thing, moment, place.

 

This is explained in myriad ways - the Cittamatra (Buddhist) school says it is all "mind", other traditions assert the reality of an outside world, etc. etc., but NONE of them are "correct". For deep reading on this topic I would suggest:

 

Quote

"Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso RImpoche

 

Put put it succinctly, Shuryu Suzuki said: "Just THIS is it". 

 

I like to say: "There is THIS, happening now."

[Cobie]

The ocean is vast because it admits all rivers. (Chinese idiom)

Meaning: The wise man listens to all sides. 
 

~~~

海 纳 百 川 (hai3 na4 bai3 chuan1) sea admits 100 rivers

有 容 乃 大 (you3  rong2  nai3 da4) is allowing therefore big

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:00 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 Indeed, it is in fact this emptiness/Dao/Unity that is the one salient characteristic of ALL phenomena that can be perceived, and the only permanent quality.

 

Space time and "self" are delusions. Enlightened mind sees that there is no separate "self", no separate here and there, and no separate time, only now. Anything else is a mental construction.

 

Does this not also include form, i.e that which is physical?  whether that is the physical human body or the universe and everything in it.  Doesn't it follow also that too is a mental construction?   if space and  time  are "illusory" "a mental construct" then isn't form also illusory since form is reliant upon space.  without time and space there can be no form.

 

following this further:

then if (since) form is also an illusory mental construct (physical anything everything is "just a thought")

then that connects to the Buddhist teaching of ending completely the cycle of reincarnation, and stepping out of it altogether.  if (since) there is no past and no time and no future, then neither are there past lives nor future lives.  when i recognize there is no body, then there also is no karma, nothing to work off, nothing to burn off.

 

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

Anything that you might think of as having its own, intrinsic (basic or unique characteristic of a person or thing) being-ness or separateness from other imagined things is illusory. Nothing exists separately. All things that appear separate of any kind, including places, times or dates, or beings and objects are ultimately not real in THAT way. Not real as a separate thing, moment, place.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:09 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

In Mahapralaya the ‘void’ is total darkness; in Daoism the ‘void’ is total light (無極 wu2 ji2)

Void is void. No one knows what it is like. Everyone has their own imagination. 
 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:10 PM by Cobie

[stirling]

9 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

following this further:

then if (since) form is also an illusory mental construct (physical anything everything is "just a thought")

then that connects to the Buddhist teaching of ending completely the cycle of reincarnation, and stepping out of it altogether.  if (since) there is no past and no time and no future, then neither are there past lives nor future lives.  when i recognize there is no body, then there also is no karma, nothing to work off, nothing to burn off.

 

Yes, that is correct. Those are all "Relative" constructs - bridges to the Absolute. This is complete realization of no-self. 

 

It isn't the end of anything, however.

[BigSkyDiamond]

10 minutes ago, Cobie said:

In Mahapralaya the ‘void’ is total darkness; in Daoism the ‘void’ is total light (無極 wu2 ji2)

Void is void. No one knows what it is like. Everyone has his own imagination. 

 

Yes, I concur.  

And if the universe and everything in it is "all in my head" and "thoughts I am thinking"

then it is much more manageable and accessible.  I find that quite comforting, less threatening.

 

My favorite people are aspects of myself, and the seeming villains are parts of myself asking for attention and in need of comfort and healing.  It is delightful actually,

 

(A friend once told me laughing, "You have a rich inner life."  I rather like that.)

Edited Wednesday at 08:17 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

54 minutes ago, stirling said:

Yes, that is correct. Those are all "Relative" constructs - bridges to the Absolute. This is complete realization of no-self. 

It isn't the end of anything, however.

 

it is not the end of me as infinite unborn uncreated unformed unchanging no beginning no end no time no space no form always was and always will be.  (Absolute)

 

but it IS the end of me thinking the thought of universe and everything in it so that ends (Relative)

the belief the thought that Separation is real ends (Relative)

inhabiting ever again the universes and everything in them ends (Relative)

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:08 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

16 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… if the universe and everything in it is "all in my head" and "thoughts I am thinking"

 

I don’t think the “universe and everything in it is all in my head and thoughts I am thinking”,  , not at all. 

I think the “universe and everything in it” is real. 

It’s imo the philosophising about it that’s not-real, “Everyone has their own imagination”.

 

Quote

then it is much more manageable and accessible.  I find that quite comforting, less threatening.

I just believe in God, total panacea.

 

Quote

My favorite people are aspects of myself, and the seeming villains are parts of myself asking for attention and in need of comfort and healing.  It is delightful actually, (… a rich inner life."  I rather like that.)

 

Love that bit. Same here. 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:32 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

Cobie i would give you ten hearts if i could.

maybe i can

 

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

[Cobie]

Thank you , that made my day. 
 

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:22 PM by Cobie

[stirling]

2 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

it is not the end of me as infinite unborn uncreated unformed unchanging no beginning no end no time no space no form always was and always will be.  (Absolute)

 

but it IS the end of me thinking the thought of universe and everything in it so that ends (Relative)

the belief the thought that Separation is real ends (Relative)

inhabiting ever again the universes and everything in them ends (Relative)

 

Not making any guesses about how deep your realization might be... but you might be surprised at how the world is after realilzation. As long as there is the perspective of the human form there is seeing the universe of things. Is there something beyond that? Where/when/who would that be? Samsara is really only a deluded view of Nirvana.

[BigSkyDiamond]

50 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Not making any guesses about how deep your realization might be... but you might be surprised at how the world is after realilzation. As long as there is the perspective of the human form there is seeing the universe of things. Is there something beyond that? Where/when/who would that be? Samsara is really only a deluded view of Nirvana.

 

it seems to be that:

since the Absolute is not bound or limited by time space and form, then the Absolute can also express in ways that are not bound by time space and form.  The worlds of Separation (which are bound by time space and form) are an  expression of the Absolute.  But certainly are not the only  expression of the Absolute.

 

i agree that from the perspective of the physical human form,  the predominant view is limited to and circumscribed by "the universe and everything in it."  Is there something beyond that?  Of course.  The bread crumb trail left for us indicates this.  Otherwise there would not be a distinction made between the Absolute and the relative.  With the distinctly different set of attributes for each clearly and consistently spelled out.  

 

That which is limited and finite and illusory the formed the created the born the physical the changing that which has a beginning and an end (the relative); simply can not also  be the extent or parameters  of that which is infinite unborn unformed uncreated unchanging and unlimited (the Absolute).  The Absolute is far too vast for that very narrow limited range of expression.  Therefore the Absolute also expresses in other ways.    Which are not limited by time space and form.    The Absolute is not a one-trick pony.

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:28 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

48 minutes ago, stirling said:

Not making any guesses about how deep your realization might be...

 

too funny !!!   

 

that's what's so great about no time no space no form:
it can't be measured !

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:24 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

It seems to be that:

since the Absolute is not bound or limited by time space and form, then the Absolute can also express in ways that are not bound by time space and form.  The worlds of Separation (which are bound by time space and form) are an  expression of the Absolute.  But certainly are not the only  expression of the Absolute.

 

...oh, absolutely (  ), but expressions of the Absolute are always Relative. It makes for some interesting experiences without a doubt, (in my experience, gods, goddesses, angels, the dead, and much more) but those experiences don't teach us anything new about the Absolute. Yes, anything can manifest at any time, but none of it is in charge of, or supersedes, insight into the Absolute nature of reality. 

 

17 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

i agree that from the perspective of the physical human form,  the predominant view is limited to and circumscribed by "the universe and everything in it."  Is there something beyond that?  Of course.  The bread crumb trail left for us indicates this.  Otherwise there would not be a distinction made between the Absolute and the relative.  With the distinctly different set of attributes for each clearly and consistently spelled out.  

 

Potentially ANYTHING could arise in the Relative. Is there something beyond the Absolute, though? Once it is a permanent insight it is realized that this would be quite impossible. 

 

17 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

The Absolute is not a one-trick pony.

 

I'd say that which emanates from the Absolute has more than one trick, certainly. The Absolute is a "no-trick pony".

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

but expressions of the Absolute are always Relative. It makes for some interesting experiences without a doubt, (in my experience, gods, goddesses, angels, the dead, and much more) but those experiences don't teach us anything new about the Absolute. 

 

all of those listed above though still occupy the worlds of Separation, they are still part of "the universe and everything in it" and are thus still limited.  The universe and everything in it includes both physical and non-physical life forms and beings.   A person can't die themselves into Realization.  Nor can they Awaken by simply staying in non-physical life forms  as any of the visions listed above. 

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 Yes, anything can manifest at any time, but none of it is in charge of, or supersedes, insight into the Absolute nature of reality.  Potentially ANYTHING could arise in the Relative. Is there something beyond the Absolute, though? Once it is a permanent insight it is realized that this would be quite impossible. 

 

No, there is nothing beyond the Absolute but there is a whole lot that is not within the worlds of Separation (the universe and everything in it).  Which is not manifested at all.  The limited human brain literally can not imagine or conceive what that is or what it looks like.  But we can recognize that it exists. 

 

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."

 

Edited yesterday at 12:54 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[Lairg]

The Absolute has always retreated before me.

 

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

 

Accordingly humans may need a different concept to discuss what is beyond their perception

 

My very limited experience is that what lies beyond what is called "the Absolute" is actually dynamic, with its own agenda

 

I find that comforting.  An unchanging Absolute has no interests/experiences - and therefore no interest in whether humans are useful in the Cosmos

 

Humans like to be useful

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:06 AM by Lairg

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

but expressions of the Absolute are always Relative.

 

a. within the worlds of Separation yes 

b. but outside the worlds of Separation  no

 

c. within the universe and everything in it yes

d. that statement (restriction, limitation) in blue box is itself conditioned and limited by the limited parameters of the worlds of Separation

e. however outside the worlds of Separation those limits are not in effect

f. so then it is experiencing as the Absolute. and not as the Relative.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:07 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

59 minutes ago, Lairg said:

The Absolute has always retreated before me.

 

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

 

Accordingly humans may need a different concept to discuss what is beyond their perception

 

My very limited experience is that what lies beyond what is called "the Absolute" is actually dynamic, with its own agenda

 

I find that comforting.  An unchanging Absolute has no interests/experiences - and therefore no interest in whether humans are useful in the Cosmos

 

Humans like to be useful

 

the attachment to being human,  and being useful, and attachment to the Cosmos (the universe and everything in it) is an obstacle to moving forward.  It is illustrated in a most clear, interesting, and literal way as described above with the imagery that Beingness is retreating.  That view or picture or relative perspective could also be seen as the human going backwards or not getting closer or not making progress.   

 

The other barrier is an indicated resistance and aversion to "unchanging" as a characteristic of Beingness. This statement is an obstacle:  "An unchanging Absolute has no interests/experiences - and therefore no interest in whether humans are useful in the Cosmos."

 

(Absolute as it is used in this discussion corresponds to Beingness, i use them interchangeably, depending on the framework and participants)

 

The barriers and obstacles indicated above are of no concern if a person is fine where they are and content with exploring the cosmos in various roles and adventures .  No one else can choose or impose a belief system, we each get to script our own based on what fits best for us.  The frame of reference needs to resonate and reflect what we see as most important, compelling, engaging, fulfilling.   

 

what is seen as a barrier for someone on one path, may well be a priority for someone on another path.  it's like ice cream, we get to choose the flavor that tastes the best.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:02 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

An unchanging Absolute has no interests/experiences - and therefore no interest in whether humans are useful in the Cosmos.

 

Yes, for a lot of people, there is huge resistance and aversion towards the attribute of unchanging for Beingness.  It is difficult to consider, much less accept and embrace and see the value in it.

 

like they say about garage sales, one man's junk is another man's treasure.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:09 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[Lairg]

1 hour ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

(Absolute as it is used in this discussion corresponds to Beingness, i use them interchangeably, depending on the framework and participants)

 

My observation of Beingness is that it seeks experience - hence produces Existence.

 

If Beingness seeks experience, I deduce that Beingness is becoming more and therefore is changing and not absolute

 

If humans have free will, Beingness does not have an absolute view/intent/direction

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

24 minutes ago, Lairg said:

My observation of Beingness is that it seeks experience - hence produces Existence.

If Beingness seeks experience, I deduce that Beingness is becoming more and therefore is changing and not absolute

If humans have free will, Beingness does not have an absolute view/intent/direction

 

my understanding is that Beingness has intent yes.

but is not changed by it.

 

If we use the terms Creator and created, or Source and phenomena

the Creator is necessary for the created to exist.  But the created is not necessary for the Creator to exist.

the Source is necessary for the phenomena that emerge from it.  but phenomena don't produce Source.

 

The Absolute gives rise to the relative, but the relative don't give rise to the Absolute.  Their attributes and characterists are totally different.  The relative changes, the Absolute does not.  "in the world but not of the world."  

that is how i view it.

[BigSkyDiamond]

54 minutes ago, Lairg said:

If Beingness seeks experience, I deduce that Beingness is becoming more and therefore is changing and not absolute

 

if Beingness is pure potential, and is the unborn potential of anything and everything, and thus already holds and  contains within it All That Is (as pure potential) then it can't become more.

 

it is indivisable.  and since it can't be divided, it also can't be added or subtracted.  because it is whole perfect complete.    Dzogchen puts it this way: "is called Great Perfection because it is not affected by the limitations that characterize all phenomena, such as their transitoriness, the causes that generate them, and the effects to which they are subjected. It cannot be defined as a meeting of opposite principles, nor as an alternation of forces. It is intrinsically non-dual."

 

Edited yesterday at 04:00 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[Lairg]

10 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

my understanding is that Beingness has intent yes.

but is not changed by it.

 

Was Beingness consulted before that constraint was imposed?

 

Sounds like AI - unable to learn

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:59 AM by Lairg

[BigSkyDiamond]

25 minutes ago, Lairg said:

Was Beingness consulted before that constraint was imposed?

Sounds like AI - unable to learn

 

it's not about learning.  or doing.  

it is about being.

 

hence the  I AM

also, all that is learned, was learned, will be learned comes from the Absolute.   So it can't gain something or add something it already has.  humans learn from the Absolute.  not the other way around. 

 

(For example some people note they get "smarter" as they become more attuned to the Absolute.  They note they "know more" or can "solve problems" which they could not solve before. They experience an increased flow of "knowing" from Beingness.)

 

Edited yesterday at 04:29 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

16 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

ll of those listed above though still occupy the worlds of Separation, they are still part of "the universe and everything in it" and are thus still limited.  The universe and everything in it includes both physical and non-physical life forms and beings.   A person can't die themselves into Realization.  Nor can they Awaken by simply staying in non-physical life forms  as any of the visions listed above.

 

We disagree here, which is fine, of course.

 

"Physical and non-physical life forms and beings" are relative constructs. A person can't do ANYTHING to wake up. Enlightenment wakes up to itself... it's own nature.

 

16 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

No, there is nothing beyond the Absolute but there is a whole lot that is not within the worlds of Separation (the universe and everything in it).  Which is not manifested at all.  The limited human brain literally can not imagine or conceive what that is or what it looks like.  But we can recognize that it exists.

 

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. That includes last nights dinner. We can posit that those things exist, but until they are experiences the lack even Relative reality. 

 

Don't get me started on the "human brain". Some interesting reading on consciousness and the brain:

 

https://tricycle.org/article/six-questions-b-alan-wallace/

 

16 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."

 

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