Janpa/arising

[Guest guest]

>>D: Yes. And how strange that it is I myself who have been fooling myself.

>>And what a show I've arranged for this elaborate deception! And remarkable

>>that all these "objects" turn out to be nothing other than Myself.

>>-- with love --

>>

>

>jt: and where does that arise from ?

>

 

D: From the very "whereness" itself. Not arising, never departing.

[Guest guest]

> >jt: and where does that arise from ?

> >

>

>D: From the very "whereness" itself. Not arising, never departing.

>

 

More like where the idea of 'bell' also arises from. There is a sense of

seperatness in this 'all is me idea'. See, having a 'me' implies there is an

'other'.

 

What is that that cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, heard, or cognitized? If

you cant sense it any way, is it really there?

 

So on the other foot what is the nature of those things that can be sensed?

Where does the endresult thought "whereness" have as a thought-parent? That

is, what chain of conditions came about to have that 'whereness' awareness

arise in the cognitive mind?

 

If the thought arose, then the conditions preceding the thought exist. What

were those? that is my real question.

 

--janpa tsomo

[Guest guest]

>> >jt: and where does that arise from ?

>> >

>>

>>D: From the very "whereness" itself. Not arising, never departing.

>>

>

>jp: More like where the idea of 'bell' also arises from. There is a sense of

>seperatness in this 'all is me idea'. See, having a 'me' implies there is an

>'other'.

 

D: The "whereness" itself has no me. When there is no separateness, this

doesn't depend on an idea - not the "right" idea nor the "wrong" idea.

It's not an idea that all is me, all is not me, there is no me, or there is

no self and no other.

>

>jp:

What is that that cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, heard, or cognitized? If

>you cant sense it any way, is it really there?

 

D: What are your senses when they don't sense each other? What is the

operation of the sensory system as a whole when it isn't aimed at an end, a

goal, nor under the supervision of memory and thought? This isn't about an

'it' that is either there or not there.

>jp:

>So on the other foot what is the nature of those things that can be sensed?

 

D: The things are images that only have the appearance of separation from

sense activity and the cognitive activity that arises with sense activity.

>jt:

>Where does the endresult thought "whereness" have as a thought-parent?

 

D: "whereness" is in quotes because it's not a thought. Treating it as an

end-result or looking for its thought-parent is to make it into a composite

thing. Put any word you like inside the quotes. The important thing to me

is the "isness" not the word in the quotes.

>jt:

That

>is, what chain of conditions came about to have that 'whereness' awareness

>arise in the cognitive mind?

 

D: At what point does awareness stop its looking into chains of conditions?

Each link leads to another link, ad infinitum. All the links interconnect.

"Cognitive mind" certainly can be treated the same way, as an arising event

connected with conditions.

>jp:

If the thought arose, then the conditions preceding the thought exist. What

>were those? that is my real question.

 

D: My response is that any event with a beginning has an end. Any event

with an inside has an outside. Any event that can be described in terms of

qualities and conditions is linked to another event that can be described

the same way. Searching for links between causes and effects is thus an

endless task. As each cause can also be treated as an effect, awareness

recognizes itself as the "lone remainder".