[NonDualPhil] what's your position? chicken or egg, hog or Self

[Guest guest]

On Nov 9, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Insight wrote:

 

>

>

> [He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he

> conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in the all,

> he conceives himself apart from the all, he conceives all

> to be 'mine,' he delights in all. Why is that? because he

> has not fully understood it, I say]

>

> P: Yes, a failure to understand identification as a separation

> of one kind or another. Even in " I am All " , there is a subtle

> distinction between the 'I' and the 'All.'

>

> I: More than that. It smashes the foundation of the " nondualist's "

> most cherished position: that the All is Self.

>

>

> e:Advaita Self = Buddhist no-self awareness (emptiness).

>

> All is Self = Form is emptiness

>

> ------------------------------

>

>

> J: 'Self' (reductionist and static)is some kind of Supreme Monad isn't

> it -

> endowed with own-being, eternal permanence, immortality, wholeness and

> indivisibility with monists seeing themselves as spiritual

> beings endowed with the same qualities and the 'seeker'

> is to be persuaded that they are ALREADY is the state of egolessness

> and absolute anonymity and any thought or desire arises

> out of some 'Oneness' - unless you have a different definition.

>

>

> One way to understand sunyata is with the idea of " nowness "

> or " momentariness " . In the absence of any

> permanent, abiding substance or Self/self/ground anywhere,

> there is only the *nowness* of things, ephemeral, transitory,

> momentary. " Nowness " is also known as tathata or " suchness " .

> When the futility of all conceptual thinking is realized, reality

> is experienced as pure " suchness " . What is realized in suchness

> is the existence of form-as-itself (the treeness of tree), but that

> realization is suffused in intutive wisdom (prajna) so that the

> ultimate reality of the form is seen as momentary and essentially

> devoid (sunya) of any lasting substance -

> emptiness=suchness=devoid of own-being.

>

>

> " Sariputra, form does not differ from emptiness,

> emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form

> is emptiness, that which is emptiness is form.

>

> Like all phenomena, form is devoid of any inherent

> self-abiding nature. This devoidness of any self-abiding

> nature (emptiness) is not a quality which a form gains

> in the course of its momentary existence but is

> infused with it from the very beginning. The sutra insists

> that form is emptness. There is a critical difference

> between form being empty and form being emptiness.

> Sunyata, in the Prajnaparamita Sutras, is the ultimate

> nature of reality; at the same time it does not exist

> part from phenomena but permeates phenomenon.

> Therefore, sunyata cannot be sought apart from the totality

> of all forms. And, although all forms are qualified at

> their core by sunyata, its presence does not negate

> the conventional appearance of form. In this sense,

> emptiness is dependent on the form it qualifies,

> as much as form is dependent on emptiness for

> its qualification. This form is emptiness and emptiness

> is form. At its core level, form does not differ from

> emptiness nor does emptiness differ from form.

>

> " The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and

> consciousness.

>

> The presence of emptiness does not negate the conventional

> appearance of feelings, perceptions, impulses, conciousness.

> All of these skandhas are constantly arising and dissolving

> as a result of certain conditions being present. These conditions

> are, in turn, empty and conditioned by another set

> of conditions which, too, are empty and so on.

>

>

> All catagories of arising and disappearing, pure and

> impure, increasing or decreasing, belong to the realm

> of affirmation and negation which are produced by

> our conceptual thinking. In pure experience, there

> is no affirmation or negation. In the experience of

> emptiness there is only emptiness, not its affirmation

> or negation as having arisen or having disappeared,

> holy, or unholy, etc. As a concept, sunyata too is

> empty. Any affirmation or negation of sunyata would

> be conceptual, and hence a deluded view.

>

> -bits lifted from a commentary on the

> Heart Sutra by Mu Soeng Sunim

>

> Joyce

>

>

 

P: Very good, Joyce. Realizing True Nature,

all things are one, and also empty. Self and

other are empty, but one. Empty because

they are not graspable; one because they can

not be set apart. The same is true of consciousness

and unconsciousness, and time and eternity. All

things are eternal, but not continuous. They are

eternal because, they are recurrent; they are

discontinuous because they come and go.

 

True nature is both conscious and unconscious,

eternity and time, Self and other, something and

nothing, and unknowable knowing of not graspable

delight.