kbone

It's interesting to note that the old maps of 'the world as we knew it' use to have scary looking dragons and strange sea creatures meant to signify "the unknown" and/or "potential dangers" off on the side or in the lower corners. Even in such convos exploring the known/unknown boundaries that hold up one's sense of existence, such fears are bound to arise. Peeps also tend to 'fear' black holes, which are nothing but collapsed/collapsing stars. Understanding the general flow of existence, I see them for what they are, wink, and smile. Big Love

Purddy gooooood. Would you say what you point to as Love is emergent in the absence of conditioned fear?

Roight. Effortlessness is the emergent word used to point to a mind informed of and aware of its 'secondary status'. the mind is a useless tool for GNOSSISING, and it can only be 'needed' in worldly (dream) affairs that arise. While the mind 'can' be used to ponder and explore existential matters with appearing 'others', it is noticed that it can also be a slippery slope, and that that is when/where beliefs are born. It can also be noticed that the more such activity/efforting is done, the more one potentially wades out into the river of ignorance, where the currents can carry the attention away, falling into greater and greater confusion and delusion. Lots of so called self-proclaimed 'teachers' do such things, not having settled into the Realization enough, unaware of the mind's degree of ignorance. It can be hard to gauge the appearance of other minds' 'depth of being informed', but mind-driven peeps do all sorts of efforting, believing all sorts of nonsense, while ignorant of effortlessness. Plus, in the age of screen peeps, language is overly relied upon, somewhat cut off from the non-linguistic forms of communication. Chatting on line and/or in relations with otherness are worldly dealios in which the mind is engaged. The apparent mind (a tool) typically uses the tool of language to navigate, negotiate, communicate.... in this dreamlike realm. But language, mostly geared for the appearing world of cause-effect, can seem almost awkward for these speerchal matters. So, here 'we are' having these convos online about the ND perspective which, practically speaking, undermines even speerchuality. Most self-identified peeps get caught up in the inherent paradoxes presented in such discussions due to linguistically conditioned perceptions. They end up engaging from a self-identified perception, resistant to the cognitive dissonance, unable to be open to much less SEE 'from' the ND perspective. But it is a very simple twist that, once SEEN, canNOT be unseen. The bell canNOT be unrung, and it has been echoing the Truth for apparent millenia in the HERE and NOW.

With respect to Huang Po, it could be that you either use a different word/logic than the one he's intending. Your use of 'infinite' to point to the same inconceivability, yet the mind is and will constantly try to slice and dice IT, grasp IT, name it, organize it, and all the rest in order to 'get IT'. At some point, the infinite futility dawns on the mind.... collapse. I suspect that Huang baby and you would get along just fine, and he'd just start laughing with you when you two finally got to that pregnant pause. Dzogchen is the ND wing ding of the Tibetans, so that doesn't surprise me. But yeah, most Tibetan's are tongue tied and mind closed with the general 'lesser schools' of Tibetan Buddhism. I dig the quote you provided. You're struggling with empty/nothing, assuming it is too nihilistic to be real, or too oppressive to be a teaching, when it's simply an innocence that can only be divided and missed by the mind. Don't worry, there are 'reasons' the mind can't know and/or remember ITS presence that is layering over and obscuring. The list you've compiled there are some great ones. I'll check out Longchempa,,, dunno that one. Some schools of thought and/or the translations of the words don't always work to help readers go from perception to perspective. Like poetry, so rez, some don't. No biggie. Sometimes, you'll read the exact same thing you rejected a week ago, but you'll see it in a different light, and you might see how it could have some value for some seeker. Or maybe it can be fun to revise it in a way that expresses the core pointer better, or in a way that you think might slip past people's consensus trance thinking. Sometimes, they're just wrong or perhaps have some agenda. I can zip through most any book on the subject, and there's likely only going to be 5-10% that I think might be the core worth focusing on, and chunk the rest. But everyone else might find value in other parts, or miss the trajectory of the whole dealio. Is the mind open to the potential that, while it likes to use the word Infinity, it may just be its momentum of having been 'the previous knower' that is continuing its attempts to grasp, name, and organize IT, instead of stabilizing as the very core/Source of/as all conscious experience right Here, right Now prior to mind itself? Story: The devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' He picked up a piece of Truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to let him organize it.'

Don't concern yourself with problems if you think there's nothing of value in them. Be as ruthless and unconcerned as you like. I ain't selling nothing. I had thought you might be more interested in the bit of criticism with respect to your infinitely open and limitlessness model. Does the main point of the criticism make any sense to you? You're bringing up anecdotal situations, treating massive schools of thought as monolithic, narrowly defined (by you) entities, and drawing conclusions, and I don't really know what to do with all the questions. Are they rhetorical or is there something particular that's actually troubling your peace of mind, blocking your ability to look directly? Maybe, as an exploration, look at the 3-4 main branches of what you call Buddhism, and see how they differ. Just stick with Hinayana, Mahayana, and Ch'an/Zen for starters. Each have very different focuses, intents, practices, overlaps, and so on.... much like any other major religion or speerchal school. I mean, if you are really intent on just trashing Buddhism, you will at least have a more informed way of doing so. Hugs, brotha.

It really is simple, yes.

That's very honest, and it exemplifies a special innocence. Super bueno. It's good to not rely on and limit oneself to definitions.... ease into the subtleties. What if I asked you use YOUR intuition to spontaneously decide which one 'exemplifies' Love more, a rock or water. Which would you choose? Don't think about it; just spontaneously decide. The immediate answer seems obvious, right? Look at your choice. Then, using the mind, reverse-engineer the intuited answer, and discover the nuances that gave rise to the mind's 'final answer'. Really try hard to flesh it out. You're peering into Intelligence at work, wherein which their are these identifiable archetypal dealios that we all share as a humanity at play, when our minds are less influenced by familial, societal, and cultural struggles. That's true contemplation, not the reliance on the mind's constructs, buttresses, and barriers.... that bind. Be free with your thinking, but sensitive to the receptivity afforded by one's openness to 'higher self'... Intelligence. Plus, the other cool ting to notice is that you are participating in an active contemplation that has been carried out for thousands of years by laymen, thinkers, metaphysical juggernauts, and unknown seers.... but it's of a higher order than the everyday grind to find. It's not about right or wrong, but about 'making' sense. It might be labeled as 'elevating' in its profundity... a simple paradox to notice and appreciate.

I wouldn't call sahaja 'rapturous', but more like EXTRAordinary... the suchness of existence in/as the unfolding, miraculous Present. Sure, at times it has a glowy, coolio dealio to it though. Depends on the state... of mind in contexts. Does that make sense?

Simply working with mind-made definitions can trip up the mind, and peeps get all crazy, contort their minds in arguments, oneupmanship games , and all the rest . So, imo/experience, it is much bettererer to learn experientially, in solitude, taking the time to experiment and see for one's self. The worldly order is so caught up in the levels, definitions, and competition, when in actuality, we're talking about the nuances of waves, layers, subtleties, and self-evident certainty. ALL is NOT TWO, but when using the mind, we can notice and play with DISTINCTIONS. The nuances you speak of can be noticed via meditation, playing with the types of samadhi, referring to the Plotinus model, and contemplating the nuances of the samadhis. This has a twofold effect: it doesn't rely on mind-based stuff to 'verify', so much as to USE the mind to report, leaving it OPEN to notice and explore the 'higher, more subtle' nuances.... CONSCIOUSLY. In the system of samadhis, 'nirvikalpa ' is often considered 'the highest level' with respect to meditation due to its degree of 'emptiness'. Note that this is not Realization per se, since we're talking states here. Hard core meditators seem to like to tinker with these, compare and contrast, and share nuances to play with: savikalpa, sabija, nirbija.... whole bunch of them, but I didn't tinker or experiment with that many of them consciously (just took it on as an interest). If one is looking at Plotinus' model, one will see that with meditation, folks are typically playing in the existential waves of the SOUL level, shifting back and forth between personal and impersonal consciousness (or a bit higher, up into the higher self/ 'Intellect' (Nous- not to be confused with left-brainish/intellect) on occasion, maybe picking up some of the energetic woweezowees, or some cool, peaceful clarity. Whereas, experience would be more of the physical nature, in which the environment, society, jobs, running errands, etc are interacted with via mind (Note: all this can be a form of meditation, too, mind you). Nirvikalpa samadhi is basically just consciously 'emptying' the content of consciousness (mouthful, hehe) to a pinpoint-like state, but again, it is not realization per se. It is more like high-level Nous in Plotinus' model, perhaps even floating up there 'next to' The One, somewhat "consciously knocking on the door", hehe. The shift into realization of The One is noticeable, but oddly not that 'memorable' in itself (for want of a better word), though the effects are noticeable on the mind, in the quality of grounding in 'experiential life', etc. It was during one of these forays in which the mind was informed that Realization is acausal; "I" can't force 'my' way into The One ('I/me' are not even present). Meditation is more like a 'making oneness prone' to realization. They say prayer is like talking to 'god/The One'; whereas, meditation is like listening.... receptive. For mind-locked folks trying to figure it out, it can seem paradoxical, and peeps get all worked up for nothing, giving in to unconscious desires to dominate, be right, be the best, knock down others, find more whatever, and all the rest. Tranquiiiiillooooo. However, once it is fully Realized that "form is formlessness, formlessness is form", one has settled the mind into its secondary role. and is in a more-or-less 'normalized', awareness-state of sahaja samadhi type of dealio, one is much more aware of when one has consciously touched/entered mind and via which the dualities are at play. Life is much smoother, even when confronting the vagaries of life (i.e., right HERE, right NOW). As such, nirvikalpa samadhi is seen, not as moot, nor even all that necessary at all, but still nice, especially saaaay, before a long day of interacting with a large group of close family members who may be a bit at odds with each other! On those kinds of day, the waves of existence can get a bit tumultuous, and the tempests are rearing their sirens. Good to notice the potential pattern in advance, fear not, and go in grounded in/as awareness. Tranquiiiilooooo... The Peaceth that Passeth ALL Understandingeth.....

Sure, every school of thought has its issues and/or gaping holes, I reckon. Some of them are based on a general cart-before-the-donkey fallacy, others may have felt they had isolated and found better method(s) or ways of expressing. None of them will 'save' you, but none of them can 'block' you either. Will there be some trial and error? Absofuckinlutely. Some earlier SEERs saw this mind thingy and likely addressed it in a way that made sense to them, so they began to spell it out and hash it out in their minds as best they could. SEERs were 'recognized', some peeps believed them, others saw it the same way, schools were founded, arguments between them hashed out, lineages were kept, etc etc etc. There have always been fakers, thieves, and con artists. The regions between the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean (and elsewhere, of course) were teaming with thousands of schools of thought, systems of beliefs, and types of practice. I do not think of the biggies as monolithically as many. The variation, sub-schools, overlaps, and borrowings were immense. Some outlandish schools even gave rise to what would eventually become the field of science, with all its own schools, arguments, lineages, etc. It's a fascinating bit of history to delve into if one wants to take some time out and explore. And now, they all seem to be converging again, and everyone continues to hash it out in their minds, just like humanity has for thousands of years... purddy coolio. Seekers start as swimming in maya, a momentum of ignorance that gives rise to the belief that "I/the me" is separate from the perceivable world. All of the sensory data and mental conditioning are woven seamlessly together, along with this simple (and powerful) thread of ignorance. For example, up to 50% of the 'physical' brain is used in sorting just the visual data coming in, and so when someone says,"You are the tree", the mind does its usual protests, rejections and misunderstandings take place, and it goes on and on, based on how deeply the mind has failed to grasp the pointer, due to its ignorance of what certain teachings point to. Seekers of Truth or Self mostly think they are looking for something else, but it seems what is actually happening is that they are burning through ignorance (not stupidity, but a structure of existential misperception). You present negative criticisms of the via negativa/neti neti aspects of certain schools for your own reasons, assumptions, and perspectives. Based on them, you aim to present potentially better or more optimal ways that your mind prefers to approach it. That's fine. To be critical, though, the way it sounds to me is that you are also putting the cart before the donkey. The infinite openness and limitless aspects of the view your mind is proposing sound nice, rewarding, and advantageous, but it also seems to have forgotten HOW you came to these conclusions (and subsequent criticisms of other schools). Undoubtedly, there has been an ample amount of failure (in my book, futility is necessary), which has required the mind to process and/or release and negate a lot of baggage and ignorance, clearing and emptying the mindset of its previous barriers. You've enjoyed a certain degree of space and clarity in the mind as fruit of your endeavors. Does that sound about right? So, could you have arrived at these conclusions without that general process? It takes a lot of failure to get out of one’s own way, which is what the neti neti/via negativa alludes to. It's how the mind discovers its limitations. Sure, in hindsight, it’s easier to see some of the insanity, silliness and wrong turns, as well as the many shoulda/coulda/wouldas. But, to this mind, it’s also understood that it all unfolded and was done --still -- simply---HAPPENING PERFECTLY SO. Couldn’t have happened any other way in order for it to happen exactly as it did. Hard to explain, but maybe someone else had the same impression. Gratitude for the whole shebang. If the mind hadn't been so delusional or was more conscious of its ignorance, it would have played out differently. In general, what changed over time was noticing and recognizing the space prior to the train(wreck) of thought, becoming more aware.... conscious of my patterns of thought/behavior. Most peeps have repetitive patterns that play out in almost predictable ways, once they become conscious of the general trajectory. Good friends, they say, are best when they point them out. Notice, take note, and become conscious of them more, and they may begin to simply fall away... naturally. Or maybe, in a moment of clarity, one notices the repetitive negative pattern in progress, takes a pause, sees the mind gaining momentum, and seizes the opportunity to consciously turn into it, righting the vessel, opening a whole new set of possibilities that the previous unconscious barrier hid from view. Conscious, spacious presence of mind in context.... right Here, right Now. Gotta go.

Yep, always more ways to attempt to say/describe. If you think it's misleading, don't use it. Yep, appearance games happen, as do tar baby arguments. Not interesting.

What is pointed to (call it whatever you want) has no attributes. There will always be more questions, because the ignorance and confusion are born of the mind (i.e., at the 'level' of the mind, which cannot see beyond itself, but can be informed by Realization). In memory, I've always been intrigued by the fact that 'Nothing' was the first word that emerged in the mind when I first inquired mentally about 'what just happened' just after the initial massive collapse, so there's that. It was more than descriptive though, IF ya know what I mean. Existential clarity like no other emerging in/as ITS profundity,,, There isn't really anything one can say about Nothingness, so there's always more to say. Nothing is unexplainable. 👁️ Everything is a mystery.

The concepts of Limitless/Open point to the exact same realization of Nothingness which, is also the same as Tao. If one thinks it's flat, boring, lacking, etc, one hasn't realized it as the formlessness/Presence (but, right, more concepts -dual in their nature/function-... without which communication is impossible). Problems for the unrealized: They are just concepts, until fully realized right HERE, right NOW for what they point to, which just so happens to be right HERE, right NOW. If they are only sensed as potential, they are not practical. If they are fleeting, they are impermanent. If only reasonably derived from disjointed moments of clarity and/or drug-induced woweezowees, they are woven together via mental processes. It's like going to a restaurant that serves only menus. Makes for a scrumptiously good read, but lacks true Limitless Nothingness, without which, all appears in limited and limiting fashion. Furthermore, what is Beloved doesn't appear either (hint: if it hasn't, the mind gets antsy). In/As Limitless Awareness-Stillness-Nothingness, limitless Consciousness-Movement-Everything arises. Form is formless; formlessness is form. Sahaja The mind, typically attenuated and fixated on its story, goals, logic, conclusions, and housing the fully clothed and conditioned finite self, cannot fathom its depths and infinite potential. But the mind can be investigated, unwound, unraveled, and put in its place; informed of its secondary status. Just doing that, one can reap the rewards of relatively conscious human adulthood. Anyone care for some water with their menu? 🥛

Wikipedia: Harada has been criticized for his support of the Japanese War-endeavors.[4] A famous quote from Harada, cited in Zen at War, is: [If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]. Wonder if that included the rape and pillage of the entire Korean peninsula for 30 years and the Nanjing Massacre?

Equanimity, yes. Even after all the nonsense 'searching' got me back to exactly where I've always been... prodigal son style. Don't really care for too much ChatGPT... too artificial for my tastes, though it can be a useful tool, hehe. You didn't even ask it about my metaphor? What about me, me, meeeeeeee!

What? Pointed out where? I'll check back later. Busy today.

I just offered a Greek story of Narcissus to further contemplate and clear up the 'idea' of the self an image/'illusory'/changing/morphing. As such, the ego could be considered a mask (i.e., In ancient Rome, the word persona (Latin) or prosopon (πρόσωπον; Ancient Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play.). I am not denying that there is a sense of/memory of self from which we act in this world. I play my part in this amazing drama... consciously, in/as Truth. But it is the reflection in the mind that makes it appear (in/as Source). I might add 'to' Source, which would give rise to the fundamental duality at play. The more I remain conscious of where the general tension of existence arises from, the more there's TPTPAU, and more immediately available. You've alluded to the EXACT same thing. I am not a Buddhist, a Zen dude, a neo advaitin, a holier-than-thou character, or the narcisisst you seem to hope me to be (notice that the labels keep changing/morphing, too). That's the image arising in your mind about who or what you think (hope?) I am, what you think I'm defending, or how I might be trying to talk down to you. I am saying, whatever is the Source of all this reflecting happening in the mind is what 'we' actually ARE. The movements as mind, evidently, appear to be quite different based on how this convo continues to unfold. I am also expressing what appears to be happening in the bifurcating mind. The strange thing is, I continue to agree with a lot of what you are sharing, and as I share very similar ideas/expressions, but perhaps emphasize aspects of certain things more. That, in turn, prompts very negative labels to arise in the mind, and then they are caste as part of the convo. I'm starting to think you might even crucify me if you were given the chance. The mind is a tool, not the master. The only real difference is that you claim to know a LOT more than I do, and I'd argue that most of that 'knowledge' is actually belief, but maybe it is a language thing. I question most everything that bubbles up in mind, especially in existential Truth talk. I should probably stop. I'll bow out.

Doubt about what?

Fascinating.

Everyting irie, gonbe irie. 😎🥰

Okie dokie. Hopefully you're followers understand the meaning of your poetry, which is why I asked.

The myth of Narcissus expresses the illusion of being obsessed with the image in the reflection of the pool (i.e., mind), not at one with/as the Source of the image. The apparent image is always changing/impermanent, while Source doesn't change and has always BEEN. As such, the delusion of only identifying as the image is problematic. "Still identified" as the image, and only imagining/assuming being the Source is also problematic. Realization unlocks the fundamental duality at odds with itself, caught in the paradox.... in the mind. Simples...

It's just an expression of having 'returned to' the Garden of Eden, realizing that one had never really left. It refers to not wanting to get caught up in the deluded mind, lost in the ignorance of thinking it is the reflection rather than the Source of the image in the reflection. So, which do you think is worse, "selling water by the river" or "selling sand by the mirage, and constantly trying to convince others that it's water"?

They (can) play a role, yes, but more deeply essential is self-honesty, without which all else eventually goes to the dung heap.

Thanks for sharing this. Interesting expose'.