Discussion:
Rig Pa
(too old to reply)
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-05-07 15:43:03 UTC
Permalink
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."

Read more:

'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-05-26 19:20:57 UTC
Permalink
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.

Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."

Work cited:

'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
^@%>---*=#
2009-05-26 20:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
they're taxing the mind now ? those
rat bastards !!!
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful.
so instead we should pursue an uncontrollable
seething rage ?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual;
so it's an unspecial dis-solemn occasion ?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
let go even of the
idea that you are meditating.
and take up the idea that you need
to let go of ideas ?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Let your body remain as it is,
doomed to dissolution ?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
and your breath as you find it.
in need of breath mints ?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
atlas shrugged's got nothin on me.
Déjà Flu
2009-05-26 20:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ^@%>---*=#
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
they're taxing the mind now ? those
rat bastards !!!
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful.
so instead we should pursue an uncontrollable
seething rage ?
Be pragmatic (the new mantra) - it's probably
better than owning shares of GM...
^@%>---*=#
2009-05-26 20:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by ^@%>---*=#
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
they're taxing the mind now ? those
rat bastards !!!
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful.
so instead we should pursue an uncontrollable
seething rage ?
Be pragmatic (the new mantra) - it's probably
better than owning shares of GM...
it's the shareholders who are
raging anyway
Allen Barker
2009-05-26 20:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
zenworm
2009-05-27 08:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind."  ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
something to hold everything sounds like duality

ZN
Son of man
2009-06-19 23:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
I don't think so, when you meditate you're not supposed to think.

So here's a good way to meditate...analyze whatever thoughts appear
after you make no effort to think...and then try to understand why
they arise.
Wally Chapman
2009-06-20 00:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Son of man
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
I don't think so, when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
So here's a good way to meditate...analyze whatever thoughts appear
after you make no effort to think...and then try to understand why
they arise.
Geez, you guys. You're making this sound like work.

Wally
dick blisters
2009-06-20 17:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Son of man
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
I don't think so, when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
So here's a good way to meditate...analyze whatever thoughts appear
after you make no effort to think...and then try to understand why
they arise.
I don't get it.... If you're supposed to think about not thinking why even
bother to stop thinking?
That's not what Transcendental Meditation is about..... TM takes you to the
even of pure awareness alone..... no need for thinking at that level of
awareness, just pure being is experienced without all the clutter of
intellectual labels.
The mantra is just a vehicle to bring the mind to that level and then the
mantra itself naturally drops away just like any other thought. It is very
simple and effortless.
willytex
2009-07-23 17:52:52 UTC
Permalink
...when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
Meditation is based on thinking. All you need to do
is be aware of being aware. In Mahayana Buddhism,
there is a 'storehouse of consciousness', a place,
where all kinds of ideas, in the form of 'seeds', are
kept. A 'storehouse' is like a museum or a store where i
nformation is stored.

"Store consciousness refers to the storing and also
to what is stored—that is, In Buddhist tradition, this
information is stored as bija, seeds."

Read more:

'Understanding Our Mind'
Fifty Verses on the Nature of Consciousness
By Thich Nhat Hanh
Parallax Press, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/d23wxf

"The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a
stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of
consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store
consciousness, and manas."

Read more:

Buddhadharma:
http://tinyurl.com/c6huez
^@%>---*=#**
2009-07-23 18:05:05 UTC
Permalink
...when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
Meditation is based on thinking. All you need to do
is be aware of being aware. In Mahayana Buddhism,
there is a 'storehouse of consciousness', a place,
where all kinds of ideas, in the form of 'seeds', are
kept. A 'storehouse' is like a museum or a store where i
nformation is stored.

"Store consciousness refers to the storing and also
to what is stored—that is, In Buddhist tradition, this
information is stored as bija, seeds."

Read more:

'Understanding Our Mind'
Fifty Verses on the Nature of Consciousness
By Thich Nhat Hanh
Parallax Press, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/d23wxf

"The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a
stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of
consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store
consciousness, and manas."

Read more:

Buddhadharma:
http://tinyurl.com/c6huez

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

buddha also said don't believe anything
anyone says, not even him.
Allen Barker
2009-07-24 05:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
...when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. Language, categories, concepts.

Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
Post by willytex
All you need to do
is be aware of being aware.
What does that have to do with thinking, except that
it seems to be the product of it?
Post by willytex
In Mahayana Buddhism,
there is a 'storehouse of consciousness', a place,
where all kinds of ideas, in the form of 'seeds', are
kept. A 'storehouse' is like a museum or a store where i
nformation is stored.
"Store consciousness refers to the storing and also
to what is stored—that is, In Buddhist tradition, this
information is stored as bija, seeds."
'Understanding Our Mind'
Fifty Verses on the Nature of Consciousness
By Thich Nhat Hanh
Parallax Press, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/d23wxf
"The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a
stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of
consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store
consciousness, and manas."
http://tinyurl.com/c6huez
willytex
2009-07-24 14:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on.  Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile. In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Post by willytex
All you need to do is be aware of being aware.
What does that have to do with thinking, except that
it seems to be the product of it?
'Being aware of being aware' is the process of non-dual
awareness, part of the Adwaita Vedanta philosophy.
There term is used extensively in writings on non-dual
awareness.

The Tathagata has wisdom and the eye transcendent
wisdom.

Diamond Sutra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra

Thus shall you think of this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

Vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutra:
http://tinyurl.com/kjaez3
Lee Rudolph
2009-07-24 14:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance. Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of). Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images. What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"? Please be specific if you can. To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting. (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)

Lee Rudolph
Keynes
2009-07-24 19:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Facial expression speaks volumes. Way back in the evolutionary
tree apes got it. Dogs can read it. We read it without knowing
how we do it. Autism seems to be a deficiency in this area,
an inabilty to empathize emotion.
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance. Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of). Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images. What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"? Please be specific if you can. To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting. (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
If we had to be smart to exist, the world would be vacant.

Ravens, sea lions, walruses, primates, and others can
count and think symbolically. (better than a three year
old child.) They can remember and plan without knowing
language.

Sometimes I put my mind into the visual center that's
full of interesting yet apparently chaotic images that
have no order and are abstract colors and shapes without
any concept of representation. It's a way to induce sleep.
zenworm
2009-07-24 20:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance.  Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of).  Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images.  What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"?  Please be specific if you can.  To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting.  (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature?  A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia?  A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
do you have Buddha-nature?

ZN
Lee Rudolph
2009-07-24 21:03:25 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
...
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!

Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
daletx
2009-07-24 21:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Rudolph
....
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
....
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!
Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
In a jar by the door...

DT
Wally Chapman
2009-07-25 03:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by daletx
Post by Lee Rudolph
....
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
....
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!
Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
In a jar by the door...
DT
Prolly under the beanbag again. I've told you and told you, don't leave
the lava lamp lit next to the door, the bugs get disoriented and start
arguing about the Great Light and the bliss of becoming one with it, and
the bodies pile up all over the damn place, like sleeping newborns with
Alzheimers, trying to raise oxymorons and imbeciles, worming all over
the damn kitchen looking for tang and and cookies, a tragic mix if ever
there was one, crumbs everywhere and the rent due again, luna larvae
coalescing in the cornbread and beat me daddy, eight to the bar, Buddha
gazing calmly from atop the dresser, next to old bowling trophies and a
diploma from Bob Jones University certifying that the bearer has
successfully completed a Course In Miracles, and is licensed to preach
to the unwashed masses, as well as the recently washed undergarments of
society, dregs in the Superbowl, washed up on the beach of pure damn
reason, walruses and Elanor fighting in the captain's tower while Texas
secedes into the distance, echoing the Old Hobo's rejoinder to Jesus who
was out recruiting in the catacombs "Hey! Close the damn door!
Whattya, born in a barn?" as the rhetoric swirls and flows down the
eternal drain, to end up in a fluffy crowd of electrons, brought to you
by.... well, you know who you are. (Don't you?)

Wally
zenworm
2009-07-24 22:10:25 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
...
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!  
Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
is that 'knowing' (Awareness)
of 'Buddha-nature' a thought (a thinking)

or is the 'knowing' (Awareness) before 'thought'?

answering this
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
imbecility, dementia, sleeping
references to states of 'thinking'? (in this case)

what a great question
which of us has not done something 'stupid'?
which of us has not become confused?
which of us does not sleep?

do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?

meditation is about allowing thought to stop
and in this Moment
without thinking pulling your attention elsewhere/when
Buddha-nature is apparent
and *you* are not

ZN
Awaken21
2009-07-24 22:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.

So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.

Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
zenworm
2009-07-25 04:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'

awake is aware

doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’

Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about

Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing

Nothing to cling to as you say

ZN
Awaken21
2009-07-25 12:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.

Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.

When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.

As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.

OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Lee Rudolph
2009-07-25 13:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so. I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
a being's point of view, as nested thus:

All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention

(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.

What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).

What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
magnetic fields are Available to humans (without the use of tools:
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).

Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.

Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time. (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)

Lee Rudolph
Allen Barker
2009-07-25 19:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so. I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology. People can switch between
different thingizations. It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense. Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them. Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."

Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...

Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain... Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization? ;-)

I don't get no respect. When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back! ;-)
Post by Lee Rudolph
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time. (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph
zenworm
2009-07-30 00:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so.  I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
    All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).  
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology.  People can switch between
different thingizations.  It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense.  Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them.  Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain...   Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization?  ;-)
I don't get no respect.  When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back!  ;-)
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).  
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time.  (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so. I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology. People can switch between
different thingizations. It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense. Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them. Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain... Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization? ;-)
I don't get no respect. When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back! ;-)
Post by Lee Rudolph
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time. (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?
ZN
it looks exactly like the abyss, no more, no less.

Robert

- - - - -
zenworm
2009-07-31 00:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so.  I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
   All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).  
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology.  People can switch between
different thingizations.  It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense.  Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them.  Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain...   Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization?  ;-)
I don't get no respect.  When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back!  ;-)
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).  
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time.  (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?
ZN
it looks exactly like the abyss, no more, no less.
Robert
- - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
it is the abyss

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-31 04:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so. I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology. People can switch between
different thingizations. It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense. Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them. Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain... Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization? ;-)
I don't get no respect. When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back! ;-)
Post by Lee Rudolph
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time. (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?
ZN
it looks exactly like the abyss, no more, no less.
Robert
- - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
it is the abyss
ZN
so you say.

robert

= = = = = =
Allen Barker
2009-07-30 11:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so. I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology. People can switch between
different thingizations. It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense. Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them. Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain... Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization? ;-)
I don't get no respect. When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back! ;-)
Post by Lee Rudolph
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time. (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?
Come closer and I'll tell you.
zenworm
2009-07-31 01:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Allen Barker
Post by Awaken21
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Just so.  I have (with a possibly culpable indulgence in some alliteration,
or is it assonance?) recently described the universe (or whathaveyou), from
    All > Accessible > Available > Awareness > Attention
(using ">" to denote "contains", implicitly with stuff left over).  
For me (for the time being, anyway), "All" is all the (finitely many)
"things" there are, all the (finitary) relations among those "things",
all the (finitary) relations among the "things" and relations, and so
on; but I'm not picky and am willing to allow others their ontologies.
There are also many possible thingization schemes, even assuming
a finite, thing-based ontology.  People can switch between
different thingizations.  It can't be known which thingization is
ultimately correct, even assuming that sort of ontology is
"correct" in some sense.  Atomic, science-based thingizations are
just one possible type of thingization, and there are many of
them.  Latent variables can be made-up for any occasion, and
people love to reify all sorts of nouns as "things."
Before the thingization occurs might be called Absence or Abyss...
Since the whole thingization scheme is created in the "mind," a
sort of loop appears in the chain...   Who is at the meta-level,
creating the thingization?  ;-)
I don't get no respect.  When I look into the abyss, the abyss
doesn't even look back!  ;-)
What is "Accessible" is determined by physics (e.g., assuming that
business about the speed of light, and all, stuff outside O's lightcone
is unaccessible).  
What is "Available" to a being O (where I am, as above, not [yet]
picky about definitions of "being"; my own impulse is to say that
a being is [some as yet unspecified, by me] sort of "relation of
relations of relations ... of relations among things", not merely
the "skin bag"-thing and its content-things) is determined by the
composition of O, in particular O's sensory armamentarium (oooh!!);
for instance, there's plenty of evidence that magnetic fields are Available
to various animals (tuna, turtles, lobsters, and honeybees, in addition
to the more familiar pigeons), but no evidence (that I know of) that
I'm actually perfectly happy to include what can be "sensed" using
tools in the sensory armamentarium, and indeed--following Michael
Polanyi--to include tools, while in use, as included in O; but not
everyone is as generous, e.g.,. I think van Uekuell would reject
incorporation of tools in an "organism" [his word]).
Again, everyone knows that the sense of smell makes a *lot* Available
to The Lower Creation, and some, but surely much less, to humans; though
a recent study has shown that humans (or, at least, undergraduate students
at Berkeley) can follow a chocolate-scented path in the grass by smell,
without being aware that they are doing so--an example of something
being Available to O (and used by O!) but not in O's Awareness.
Finally, as I use the terms (which is not idiosyncratically, but not
to everybody's taste, either), what is in Attention (at any instant
[where I avoid problems with the meaning of "instant", "moment",
etc., by *defining* psychological time tautologically in terms of
Attention, and disclaiming {provisionally} any theory correlating
psychological time with, say, thermodynamic time]) is singular,
just one of a (probably strictly limited) number of "things"
that are in Awareness at that time.  (Actually, I suspect that
there are both Awareness-time[s, several for several different
sensoria] and Attention-time[s, potentially, several for several
different and mutually independent "consciousnesses"]; but,
again, I'm not picky, I'm trying to elaborate a general framework.)
Lee Rudolph- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without an "i" to know the 'abyss', how does it look?
Come closer and I'll tell you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nasty?

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-29 18:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean? :)

Robert

==================
Awaken21
2009-07-29 21:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean?   :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
halfawake
2009-07-30 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean? :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!

Robert

- - - - - -
Awaken21
2009-07-30 03:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean?   :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.

Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.

Nothing else.
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean? :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
Nothing else.
sorry for drooling....

robert

----------------------------
Awaken21
2009-07-30 03:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean?   :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
Nothing else.
sorry for drooling....
No harm, no foul. If I had a dime for every pillow, headrest, cushion,
etc. I had to wash, or hastily wipe before anyone saw anything....
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean? :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
Nothing else.
sorry for drooling....
No harm, no foul. If I had a dime for every pillow, headrest, cushion,
etc. I had to wash, or hastily wipe before anyone saw anything....
:)
Awaken21
2009-07-30 03:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean?   :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
Nothing else.
sorry for drooling....
No harm, no foul. If I had a dime for every pillow, headrest, cushion,
etc. I had to wash, or hastily wipe before anyone saw anything....
:)
hehehe
zenworm
2009-07-31 01:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by Awaken21
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.
Yeah, but what does it all mean?   :)
Robert
==================
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
ah, so Buddha-nature is yummy and yet doesn't fill you up!
No. Same mistake Zenworm is making.
Oreos and milk belong together. Having a spoon along, just in case,
isn't a bad idea.
Nothing else.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
there are no mistakes

there are no accidents

there is


ZN
zenworm
2009-07-30 01:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something

holding to either is duality (empirical)

when the empirical turns inside out

the inside and the outside disappear

something and nothing disappear

Moment is Awareness

isness is

ZN
Awaken21
2009-07-30 01:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?

Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.
it's like one of those bad dreams...

robert
Awaken21
2009-07-30 03:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as no nature what-so-ever
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not no nature what-so-ever
nor is it Buddha nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.
it's like one of those bad dreams...
Wake up.
zenworm
2009-07-31 00:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies

Awareness is

ZN
Awaken21
2009-07-31 01:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.
zenworm
2009-07-31 01:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer

hear the whisper...

"*is*"

ZN
Awaken21
2009-07-31 01:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you talk too much.
zenworm
2009-07-31 02:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you talk too much.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
what do you hear?

ZN
Allen Barker
2009-07-31 03:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
A whispered word is not what happens when you come closer. ;-)
zenworm
2009-07-31 16:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
A whispered word is not what happens when you come closer.  ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
precisely

no ‘whisper’

no ‘closer’

(“*is*” – asterisk denotes experience not sound
quotes denotes something ‘listened’ for
‘whisper’ denotes subtle
‘come closer’ is parody – there is no ‘closer’
there is no ‘close enough’
there is only here
‘is’ denotes experience of Awareness
not a verbal word)

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-31 04:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN
if you had only left the "is" out you would have been okay.

Robert

= = = = = = =
zenworm
2009-07-31 16:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN
if you had only left the "is" out you would have been okay.
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(“*is*” – asterisk denotes experience not sound
quotes denotes something ‘listened’ for
‘whisper’ denotes subtle
‘come closer’ is parody – there is no ‘closer’
there is no ‘close enough’
there is only here
‘is’ denotes experience of Awareness
not a verbal word)

ZN
halfawake
2009-08-02 04:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN
if you had only left the "is" out you would have been okay.
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(“*is*” – asterisk denotes experience not sound
quotes denotes something ‘listened’ for
‘whisper’ denotes subtle
‘come closer’ is parody – there is no ‘closer’
there is no ‘close enough’
there is only here
‘is’ denotes experience of Awareness
not a verbal word)
ZN
that is exactly the problem - too much denotation, not enough just being.

Robert

= = = = = = = = =
zenworm
2009-08-02 05:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
You're not paying close enough attention.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
come closer
hear the whisper...
"*is*"
ZN
if you had only left the "is" out you would have been okay.
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(“*is*” – asterisk denotes experience not sound
quotes denotes something ‘listened’ for
‘whisper’ denotes subtle
‘come closer’ is parody – there is no ‘closer’
there is no ‘close enough’
there is only here
‘is’ denotes experience of Awareness
not a verbal word)
ZN
that is exactly the problem - too much denotation, not enough just being.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No problem

No resistance

All being

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-31 04:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
ZN
you are a concept waiting to happen.

robert

= = = = = =
zenworm
2009-07-31 15:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring,  not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing"  it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity."  To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas  it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
ZN
you are a concept waiting to happen.
robert
= = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
'you' is a concept

ZN
halfawake
2009-08-02 04:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
the negative is used to help prevent associating awareness
with something known by the body/mind
Awareness in the sense of the absolute is not 'known'
The negative is a straight foward definition of what is easily seen
and felt. It's not an intellectual trick to guide anyone to do or
understand anything. There are things that are mysterious about
awareness, but that doesn't make it Buddha-nature.
Post by zenworm
awake is aware
Aware comes after Buddha-nature. First there needs to be the space
into which awareness flows.
Post by zenworm
doubt is thought and projection (second thoughts)
Or doubt can be no thoughts, for or against. Again, your intellect
seems to like having something, anything rather than accept that it is
possibly nothing.
Post by zenworm
Post by Awaken21
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Understanding the emptiness of the appearances of form
is not the same as ‘no nature what-so-ever’
You seem to be trying to grasp this with your intellect. Which is also
probably why you keep seeing the illusions of something,
"awareness" ,where there is nothing. And then you're trying for
"understanding"... Egads... the heavy load just gets bigger and harder
to manage. From my POV you're jumping at shadows.
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
The assumptive flaw is that everyone just naturally
assumes there must be a self to be aware
(self the egoic idea of a *you* [someone to own]) and/or
(self the physical body/mind empirical sensual *you*[someone to
experience])
Neither is correct
As you indicated both of these are temporal (die)(impermanent)
Awareness is not subject to the temporal except for the manifestation
of the appearances that seem to be us which is why many masters
remember past lives
Lives are not owned there is the Awareness of experience
that can be anywhere/when
Awareness is not dependant upon nor limited to a *your*/*my* life
In the relative field the manifestation of Awareness
is always the present eternal Moment
Post by Awaken21
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
very tricky to write/speak about
Awareness has no definition (no boundary)
as it does not exclude anything
nor is it limited to nothing
Awareness excludes lot's of things. Awareness is quite constrained and
filtered by our physical form, there are an infinite number of things
going on that we remain completely unaware of. Even within my very own
body I'm unaware of the majority of it's functions, so many that it
boggles the mind. And then take one step beyond the skin bag and
things really go wild.
Then there's the physical death thing, which we have no idea about
awareness after death, which is possibly another limit. Buddha-nature
has no such limit.
When I read you're statement (paraphrased) "awareness is not limited
to nothing" it translates in my experience as "Awareness is not
limited to infinity." To which my gut response is "Huh?", it just
sounds like babbling white noise. Awareness is not infinite and
infinity is not limiting.
Post by zenworm
Nothing to cling to as you say
And yet you seem to clinging to 'awareness' and 'understanding'.
As I see it and feel it and live within it, the need to understand it,
or call it something drops away. I read what you say and feels like
your desperately trying to find a 'thing' or 'things' that fill the
void. Whereas it looks to me like not any thing is up to that task.
OTOH if you continue to practice with sincerety, which you seem to do,
I have great faith that at some point you'll actually see all this for
yourself..... and if you're happy, satisfied in the meantime, then no
harm no foul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if nothing was unlimited there would not be something
Fish swim forever in the ocean, this is the nature of infinity. It is
because nothing is unlimited that something arises.
Post by zenworm
holding to either is duality (empirical)
You mean like moment, or Buddha nature, or awareness?
Yes, all are too heavy a load. Drop them now or be stripped naked when
you die.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
when 'you' dies
Awareness is
ZN
you are a concept waiting to happen.
robert
= = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
'you' is a concept
ZN
and your "you concept" is more conceptually proliferate than the average
whomever.

Robert

- - - - - - - - - -
halfawake
2009-07-29 18:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?

Robert

- - - - - - - - - -
zenworm
2009-07-30 01:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this?  What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly

Precisely

Absolutely

What it is

Right now

ZN
Déjà Flu
2009-07-30 01:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?
zenworm
2009-07-30 01:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this?  What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
can the right hand 'miss' the left hand?

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
can the right hand 'miss' the left hand?
ZN
in my experience, they take turns...

robert
zenworm
2009-07-31 01:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this?  What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
can the right hand 'miss' the left hand?
ZN
in my experience, they take turns...
robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
naughty?

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-31 04:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
can the right hand 'miss' the left hand?
ZN
in my experience, they take turns...
robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
naughty?
ZN
naughty is as naughty thinks.
mind your mind.

Robert

- - - - - - - - -
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Déjà Flu
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Awareness is not 'no nature what-so-ever'
nor is it Buddha--nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
You missed the whole movie and there are no reruns.
All you have is what's on your DVR.
What now, Mu Cow?
can't be helped.

robert
halfawake
2009-07-30 03:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Awareness is not ‘no nature what-so-ever’
nor is it Buddha–nature when speaking in the relative field
so to say Awareness is something is incorrect
(as you indicated)
however it is also incorrect to say
awareness is nothing or not something
It can seem like gibberish when using an inherently
dualistic medium to communicate
So can you say anything about this? What can you say, rather than
explaining it to death?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
It is exactly
Precisely
Absolutely
What it is
Right now
ZN
good enough.

robert

- - - - -
halfawake
2009-07-29 07:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
nothing to cling to, certainly not [yuck!] buddha-nature.

who would want to carry that around?

Robert

= = = = = = =
Julian
2009-07-29 07:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Awaken21
Post by zenworm
do you doubt the Buddha-nature (Awareness)
moving *you*?
Buddha-nature defines a negative. Buddha-nature is the state of having
no nature, nothing enduring, not even a nature called "Buddha-
nature". Awareness is not the correct definition of Buddha-nature
because awareness is something. Buddha-nature is no nature, not there,
nothing permanent. When the body dies and we're no longer 'aware',
where exactly has our Buddha-nature gone? It hasn't, nothing has
changed, nothing endures, Buddha-nature is once again confirmed.
So yes, I doubt seriously that Buddha-nature is moving "me" or
anything else for that matter, because Buddha-nature by it's
definition is a negative, not there, no nature. That the dog has no
nature what-so-ever is it's Buddha-nature.
Nothing to cling to, not even Buddha-nature.
nothing to cling to, certainly not [yuck!] buddha-nature.
who would want to carry that around?
Disciples.
halfawake
2009-07-29 07:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Rudolph
...
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
...
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!
Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
look where the light is the strongest - it's easier to see there.

Robert

- - - -
Lee Rudolph
2009-07-29 10:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Lee Rudolph
...
Post by zenworm
Post by willytex
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
...
Post by zenworm
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
do you have Buddha-nature?
I know it was around here somewhere!
Lee Rudolph (under the sofa? behind the stove?)
look where the light is the strongest - it's easier to see there.
You already solved the problem several posts back: the dog took it.

Lee Rudolph (and by the time he was done with it, I didn't want it any more)
halfawake
2009-07-29 07:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance. Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of). Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images. What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"? Please be specific if you can. To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting. (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
do you have Buddha-nature?
ZN
only if the dog has it.

robert

- - - - - -
zenworm
2009-07-30 00:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance.  Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of).  Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images.  What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"?  Please be specific if you can.  To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting.  (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature?  A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia?  A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
do you have Buddha-nature?
ZN
only if the dog has it.
robert
- - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
true

ZN
halfawake
2009-07-29 07:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance. Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of). Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images. What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"? Please be specific if you can. To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting. (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature? A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia? A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
do you have Buddha-nature?
ZN
all of Lee's guys above have buddha-nature, as much as anyone who is
"whole" and mentally competent. whether one can access or experience it
is another matter.

robert

- - - - -
zenworm
2009-07-30 00:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by zenworm
Post by Lee Rudolph
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on. =A0Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Language is one medium for one kind of communication, certainly
(and one I'm greatly fond of); however, by its very nature
(particularly in its written, and thus entirely disembodied,
variants; but also in its spoken forms as recorded or broadcast,
when the speaker has no way of being with the listener during the
speech) it has a strong tendency to privilege communication
of "categories", "concepts", etc., over communication of
some other kinds of experience (that are hard or impossible
to "categorize" or "conceptualize" without, in the process,
utterly transforming them).
Post by willytex
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile.
The word "think" is not well-defined; or, at least, it has no
universally agreed significance.  Some people intend it to
mean "think in words"; a friend of mine (an 80-year-old non-
representational painter, at that!) did not believe me when
I told him years ago that I (sometimes) think without words
(specifically, with "geometric diagrams", sort of).  Temple
Grandin, a high-functioning autist perhaps most famous for
designing slaughterhouses that minimize or eliminate fear
in the cattle who are about to die, has written a recent book
in which I believe (I haven't read it yet) she discusses
"thinking" in images.  What do you mean by "think", and why
--for that specific definition of "think"--would it "be very
difficult, if not impossible, to practice meditation if one
couldn't think"?  Please be specific if you can.  To me,
your statement is not obviously true, but an argument
(rather than a flat assertion) might persuade me, and
in any case would be interesting.  (Of course you may
have no stake in persuading or interesting me.)
Post by willytex
In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Does an imbecile have Buddha-nature?  A Zen adept in the
last throes of Alzheimer's dementia?  A sleeping newborn?
(All non-rhetorical questions.)
Lee Rudolph
do you have Buddha-nature?
ZN
all of Lee's guys above have buddha-nature, as much as anyone who is
"whole" and mentally competent.  whether one can access or experience it
is another matter.
robert
- - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
yes

ZN
Keynes
2009-07-24 18:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Post by willytex
Meditation is based on thinking.
Supposed to, based on.  Language, categories, concepts.
Language is just the medium for us to communicate, Allen.
Maybe in a middle-way, skillful-means kind of way it
could be suggested that meditation is based on observing
thinking?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to practice
meditation if one couldn't think. If a person cannot think,
then he's probably an imbecile. In Zen practice the object
is to go beyond thinking, to samadhi, but before you get
there, you've got to be able to think and be conscious.
Post by willytex
All you need to do is be aware of being aware.
What does that have to do with thinking, except that
it seems to be the product of it?
'Being aware of being aware'
I think this goes too far.
Or not far enough.
Or both. Or neither.

IMO there is awareness, but no consciousness
of anyone or anything being aware of anything
in general or in particular.

The experience of no-self draws no conclusions.
And has no need to.
Post by willytex
is the process of non-dual
awareness, part of the Adwaita Vedanta philosophy.
There term is used extensively in writings on non-dual
awareness.
The Tathagata has wisdom and the eye transcendent
wisdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
http://tinyurl.com/kjaez3
halfawake
2009-08-01 07:28:14 UTC
Permalink
sometimes when I store up too many seeds, it can be really uncomfortable.
Post by willytex
...when you meditate you're not supposed to think.
Meditation is based on thinking. All you need to do
is be aware of being aware. In Mahayana Buddhism,
there is a 'storehouse of consciousness', a place,
where all kinds of ideas, in the form of 'seeds', are
kept. A 'storehouse' is like a museum or a store where i
nformation is stored.
"Store consciousness refers to the storing and also
to what is stored—that is, In Buddhist tradition, this
information is stored as bija, seeds."
'Understanding Our Mind'
Fifty Verses on the Nature of Consciousness
By Thich Nhat Hanh
Parallax Press, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/d23wxf
"The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a
stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of
consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store
consciousness, and manas."
http://tinyurl.com/c6huez
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-06-04 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind."  ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Allen Barker
2009-06-04 00:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Would thinking certain of those other thoughts be
imposing anything on the mind, or not?
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
robertsrg
2009-08-06 17:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Would thinking certain of those other thoughts be
imposing anything on the mind, or not?
thinking requires judgements, asessments, boundaries, etc. which all keep
the mind locked in ego and the limitations of the intellect.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Lee Rudolph
2009-08-06 17:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by robertsrg
thinking requires judgements, asessments, boundaries, etc. which all keep
the mind locked in ego and the limitations of the intellect.
That proposition entails either a strikingly limited definition
of "thinking" or a strikingly expansive defintion of "ego". Or,
of course, both.

Lee Rudolph

Evelyn
2009-06-04 12:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
It's a very good book, but Sogyal himself is no spiritual teacher to follow.
He has been MUCH discussed on usenet in the '90's, and most of it is bad.
I would not recommend him to any sincere western students because of his
history. BTW, He did not write the book himself, but the people who did
write it were excellent. Unfortunately Soggy has his name on the cover.
If a person reads the book, realize that the information is good and it is
well written, but Sogyal himself had little to do with it.
--
Evelyn

"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
halfawake
2009-06-06 16:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
It's a very good book, but Sogyal himself is no spiritual teacher to
follow. He has been MUCH discussed on usenet in the '90's, and most of
it is bad. I would not recommend him to any sincere western students
because of his history. BTW, He did not write the book himself, but
the people who did write it were excellent. Unfortunately Soggy has
his name on the cover. If a person reads the book, realize that the
information is good and it is well written, but Sogyal himself had
little to do with it.
interesting.

there's always a back-story isn't there?

who did write it? :)

robert

= = = = = = =
Evelyn
2009-06-06 16:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
It's a very good book, but Sogyal himself is no spiritual teacher to
follow. He has been MUCH discussed on usenet in the '90's, and most of it
is bad. I would not recommend him to any sincere western students because
of his history. BTW, He did not write the book himself, but the people
who did write it were excellent. Unfortunately Soggy has his name on
the cover. If a person reads the book, realize that the information is
good and it is well written, but Sogyal himself had little to do with it.
interesting.
there's always a back-story isn't there?
who did write it? :)
robert
= = = = = = =
A couple of his students whom I believe are given some credit in the book,
but they were the ones that actually wrote it.
--
Evelyn

"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
halfawake
2009-06-06 17:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn
Post by halfawake
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
It's a very good book, but Sogyal himself is no spiritual teacher to
follow. He has been MUCH discussed on usenet in the '90's, and most
of it is bad. I would not recommend him to any sincere western
students because of his history. BTW, He did not write the book
himself, but the people who did write it were excellent.
Unfortunately Soggy has his name on the cover. If a person reads the
book, realize that the information is good and it is well written,
but Sogyal himself had little to do with it.
interesting.
there's always a back-story isn't there?
who did write it? :)
robert
= = = = = = =
A couple of his students whom I believe are given some credit in the
book, but they were the ones that actually wrote it.
the 'grad students' never get the full credit for the research...

robert

= = = = = = =
Evelyn
2009-06-06 18:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by halfawake
Post by Evelyn
Post by halfawake
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind." ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
It's a very good book, but Sogyal himself is no spiritual teacher to
follow. He has been MUCH discussed on usenet in the '90's, and most of
it is bad. I would not recommend him to any sincere western students
because of his history. BTW, He did not write the book himself, but
the people who did write it were excellent. Unfortunately Soggy has
his name on the cover. If a person reads the book, realize that the
information is good and it is well written, but Sogyal himself had
little to do with it.
interesting.
there's always a back-story isn't there?
who did write it? :)
robert
= = = = = = =
A couple of his students whom I believe are given some credit in the
book, but they were the ones that actually wrote it.
the 'grad students' never get the full credit for the research...
robert
= = = = = = =
Exactly. Sogyal is a horrible person. You know I never take such a stand,
unless it is a particularly egregious situation. Warn anyone you know off
his outfit. The information is out there and there was a lot of discussion
on usenet in years past.
--
Evelyn

"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-06-04 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe
is a fine "not imposing anything on the mind."  ;-)
Along with the rest of the checklist. ;-)
'Thinking of yourself as the sky holding the whole universe'
is just like thinking any other thought, Allen.
Post by Allen Barker
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
zenworm
2009-05-27 08:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
like what happens

when an unstoppable force

meets an immovable object

right now

ZN
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-06-04 00:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
like what happens
when an unstoppable force
meets an immovable object
right now
You are supposed to read the book BEFORE
you post your comments.
Post by zenworm
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992- Hide quoted text -
user
2009-06-06 20:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Post by zenworm
like what happens
when an unstoppable force
meets an immovable object
right now
You are supposed to read the book BEFORE
you post your comments.
As do the rest of us.
willytex
2009-06-19 16:45:04 UTC
Permalink
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the idea
that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is, and your
breath as you find it." - Sogyal Rinpoche
^@%>---*=#*^
2009-06-19 17:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
dick blisters
2009-06-19 18:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ^@%>---*=#*^
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
Dear "^@%>---*=#*^"
Aren't you just the cutest little thing.....
Sentiment Bri
2009-06-19 19:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by dick blisters
Post by ^@%>---*=#*^
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
Aren't you just the cutest little thing.....
The sarcasm trains a rollin'. Chock full of contrarians and diminuitive
endearments.
dick blisters
2009-06-19 20:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sentiment Bri
Post by dick blisters
Post by ^@%>---*=#*^
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
Aren't you just the cutest little thing.....
The sarcasm trains a rollin'. Chock full of contrarians and diminuitive
endearments.
I like your terminology/choice of words..... few words to paint a full
picture.
Sentiment Bri
2009-06-19 23:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by dick blisters
Post by Sentiment Bri
Post by dick blisters
Post by ^@%>---*=#*^
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
Aren't you just the cutest little thing.....
The sarcasm trains a rollin'. Chock full of contrarians and diminuitive
endearments.
I like your terminology/choice of words..... few words to paint a full
picture.
I get so few opportunities to use those terms...you've ruined them for me.
(assuming we're keeping the sarcasm train a rollin')
dick blisters
2009-06-20 11:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sentiment Bri
Post by dick blisters
Post by Sentiment Bri
Post by dick blisters
Post by ^@%>---*=#*^
Post by willytex
"So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
don't give congress any ideas.
Post by willytex
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no
attempt to be peaceful.
so one should strive to be effortfully
out of control ?
Post by willytex
Don't be overly solemn or feel that you
are taking part in some special ritual;
but the people in the cult told
me that i was special.
Post by willytex
let go even of the idea
that you are meditating.
so what am i actually doing ?
remembering to not be special
in an effortfully out of control way ?
Post by willytex
Let your body remain as it is,
i didn't plan on changing it.
Post by willytex
and your
breath as you find it."
i found it in need of breath mints.
you sure i should leave it that way ?
Aren't you just the cutest little thing.....
The sarcasm trains a rollin'. Chock full of contrarians and diminuitive
endearments.
I like your terminology/choice of words..... few words to paint a full
picture.
I get so few opportunities to use those terms...you've ruined them for me.
(assuming we're keeping the sarcasm train a rollin')
Glad to be of service.........
r***@rwilliams.us
2009-06-04 00:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by zenworm
like what happens
when an unstoppable force
meets an immovable object
right now
You are supposed to read the book BEFORE
you post your comments.
Post by zenworm
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992- Hide quoted text -
robertsrg
2009-08-06 12:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it.
When you meditate there should be no effort to control and
no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that
you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the
idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is,
and your breath as you find it.
Think of yourself as the sky, holding the whole universe."
You are still holding on..... By controlling the thoughts, you are stil
bound within limitations and duality.
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord,
and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure
awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation."
'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'
Rigpa: The Stages of Meditation
By Sogyal Rinpoche
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...