Cosmology of Space

[Guest guest]

> --

 

P:P: Excellent! The One, perceives itself as

> space. and feels this perception as mind.

> There could not be perception of space

> without positing a virtual duality of 'others' as

> points in space. A complete empty space

> would be undetectable. So virtual duality

> is needed for perception of space, movement

> and time. When in realization space, form,

> and mind become one, infinity and relativity,

> also become one. Then, there is no inside, or

> outside. E unum pluribus, e pluribus unum.

>

 

B: re " virtual duality " (I love the term),

is there any other kind?

 

P: There are " believed duality " and " lived "

duality. After duality is realized as virtual,

rice still nourish, rocks still hurt.

 

Below is an interesting exchange between Lewis and I,

a year ago.

 

 

> >

> > > Ummon said, " true emptiness doesn't negate things,

> > > true emptiness is not different from things. "

> > >

> > > How is this different from 'emptiness is form?'

> > > Ummo's statement  is more specific, less

> > > philosophical. When emptiness downs, it's the

> > > emptiness of ideas which becomes clear.   Rice,

> > > and rocks remain the same.

> > >

> > > Pete

 

 

> > Lewis: A question to ask is what does one see and understand before

> > emptiness when seeing rice and rocks? Are not rocks and rice

defined

> > and used as they can be and are seen and used as inherently

> > self-existing things, - they exist independently on their own as

> > separate objects with all their uses and purposes and complex web

of

> > meanings, perceptions, emotions, thoughts conceptions, attachments

> > etc. involved in them?

> > Now, after emptiness dawns, what does one see and understand when

now

> > seeing what was formerly rice and rocks?

> >

> P:a1: Eat your rice, sit on a rock, or throw a rock. Neither rice

nor rocks

> were, or will ever be understood. Understanding is always about

rearranging

> ideas. It's a lovely game as it goes, and we love to play, don't we?

 

L:a1: Yes. That is so. And that is not the full meaning of emptiness.

We had this one before as well...Indulge me, Pete as I turn the volume

of Nagarjuna's meaning of emptiness up a bit. Relax and enjoy.... :-).

 

That above refers to the hermneutics of rocks and rice, as rocks and

rice still existing as independent, inherently existing things. It is a

beginning use of emptiness to see how we construct meaning and are

fixated in it. It is said:

 

" Neither rice nor rocks were, or will ever be understood. "

 

It is assumed here that rocks and rice exist as things, and then an

attempt to understand these existing things are made, and it is then

said they were and never will never be understood. This is fact, as all

conceptions, such as rock or rice, God or Self, mind or ego are always

a vapor upon close examination. And this is not quite fully what

emptiness is about.

 

Emptiness is not hermeneutics, interpretations, a word and idea game

played on the internet or in language and philosophy in one's head. It

is practice and living in daily life and there are outcomes,

consequences in it.

 

It is the genius of humanity that is able to fill and shape the forms

or appearances in as many ways as we conceive.

 

Before there is rice or rock there is only [unnamed, undefined,

unidentified, unknown, not understood] form, appearance.

 

** Before there is rice or rock there is only [unnamed, undefined,

unidentified, unknown, not understood] form, appearance. There is " no

thing. "

 

Then, a form or appearance is named, known, defined, identified,

understood in one way or another and seen as reality. Now, there is

" some thing, " self-existing rocks or rice.

 

 

In emptiness, a rock is not a rock, rice is not rice any longer as it

was filled before. In the practice of emptiness, these are not " defined

things " any more. They are not named, known, defined, identified,

understood in one way or another and seen as reality. They are new. In

that undefined..... newness, there are only forms to be filled, to be

reshaped, redesigned, made, constructed as needed, as demand arises so

that they arise as requried. They cannot be used or certainly not

fixated upon until made and since they dissipate upon putting away

there is no fixation possible.

 

 

To be thoroughly fixated in words, concepts, things, there is little

genius, exploration, discovery, invention or freedom. Just dullness,

rootedness, habit, boredom, enslavement, and suffering, all born of

fixations on things as imagined, thought and believed to be; as

independent, inherently self-existing things once seen, fully defined

in concept and use, doubted once or twice, poetically conceived here

and there, talked about, mused over, yet remaining fixed as is for life

till death. A world of fixations as reality.

 

 

Not so in emptiness. In it, there are only forms, appearances,

undefined, unknown, not understood, until those are given again as it

were as required or completely different as it goes as conceived and

preferred. There is freedom. Fixations are loosed as form and

appearance are empty, and are simply used in the moment, defined and

exisitng as required, and then dissipating until the next demand or

call comes.

 

As Nagarjuna says:

 

23. Is there this? Is there the other? Is there permanence? Is there

impermanence? Is there both permanence and impermanence? Is there

neither?

 

24. Totally pacifying all referents and totally pacifying fixations is

peace. The Buddha nowhere taught any dharma to anyone.

 

[from Mulamadhyamakakarika. 25. Investigation of Nirvana, Nos. 23 and

24]

 

Lewis