Ajata Project

[VeganAwake]

No Abiding Reality | The Ajata Project https://share.google/lPzt0g8rrQA0SdB2r

 

[Mellowmarsh]

4 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

No Abiding Reality | The Ajata Project https://share.google/lPzt0g8rrQA0SdB2r

 

👆

The epitome of perfect peace.
Seems, No one wants to abide here.

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

No Abiding Reality | The Ajata Project https://share.google/lPzt0g8rrQA0SdB2r

 

 

They say this:

Therefore, when a tree, for instance, is analyzed, the tree is not found, but its mode of being or emptiness is found. Then, when that emptiness is analyzed, that emptiness also is not found, but the emptiness of that emptiness is found. This is called an emptiness of emptiness. Thus, a tree is a conventional ‘truth’, and its mode of being is an ultimate truth…

 

How they analyze the tree ? Maybe they know all the physical procceses that happens in the reality that have as a consequence the tree? Or maybe they see a tree and they arrived to the conclusion that it's empty, just by feeling?

Seems that they are inventing a paradigm without a real deep understanding of what a tree is. Like, I see the tree, then I arrive to the conclusion that the tree is the void. Well, if you say so.....

All this text is a conceptual paradigm built over some "truths" that are just subjetive ideas of the philosopher who wrote it, that can't be seriously confronted because they depends of logical jumps that make no real sense but they present as absolute logical obviousness 

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:23 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Or this:

 

Though phenomena appear as if true, most true, ultimately they are not true. Therefore phenomena abide in the middle way, not truly or inherently existent and also not utterly non-existent…

 

So, according to him the phenomena appears as true, but they aren't. What means "true"? Why they appear as true and they aren't? 

That's just a subjetive categorization that the writer established just because that's his feeling. Like if "true" was something that everyone have exactly determined. That's a kind of reasoning that can't be seriously confronted. If you want to believe this you have to be extremely permissive with all the logical jumps. 

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

👆

The epitome of perfect peace.
Seems, No one wants to abide here.

Why it's peace having that mental paradigm? Imo what's peace is perceiving directly without mental filter, without categories like void, meaning, karma or anything. Just being open to the real flow now. Definitions happen in the flow, can't encompass it. Void is just an idea that want to express "without reality" when you are talking about the reality. The reality can't be unreal because it's the reality. You can't define it, you are it. Knowing in this case is being, not defining.

Edited Wednesday at 01:30 PM by Breakingthewall

[VeganAwake]

@Breakingthewall 

It's pointing to impermanence and meaninglessness

It's not necessarily a denial of current physical reality but it simultaneously is also.

It's a denial of its permanence and meaning.

Like a mirage or illusion, it ultimately lacks in reality regardless of the period of time in which it seems to be real.

It's not to be logically understood because it's real and simultaneously unreal. 

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

@Breakingthewall 

It's pointing to impermanence and meaninglessness

It's not necessarily a denial of current physical reality but it simultaneously is also.

It's a denial of its permanence and meaning.

Like a mirage or illusion, it ultimately lacks in reality regardless of the period of time in which it seems to be real.

It's not to be logically understood because it's real and simultaneously unreal. 

It's a text full of logical mistakes and arbitrary jumps. What is impermanent? What the writer sees as a tree? Maybe he can't understand that the tree is a local manifestation of the reality, and that the reality is permanent as manifested flow, then the tree would be just the visible tip of that flow from his local perspective. 

What means meaningless? The tree is meaningful for all it's area of influence, and this area is meaningful for the next areas of fluctuation, because everything is interconnected. 

Maybe for you or for the writer all that is meaningless because ultimately it would disappear, but that's not true, nothing disappear but changes. Meaningless or meaningful are just mental categories that the writer use arbitrarily. The correct term would be cause and effect. The tree is cause of an area of change. 

Then you could say: for me it's meaningless. What is meaning? First define meaning. Really meaning is anything that is in the cause effect chain and means anything for this chain.

Then you could say: ok but for me that chain means nothing. Well, that is just your subjetive feeling, not a description of the reality. You are using "meaningless" as an adjective, like beautiful or boring or anything. Just the effect that causes in your emotions from your actual limited perspective. 

Edited Thursday at 02:30 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

Like a mirage or illusion, it ultimately lacks in reality regardless of the period of time in which it seems to be real.

7 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

@Breakingthewall 

 

The fact of the flow is real. Thinking that the reality is unreal because a tree will die is a reasoning very basic, without real understanding. Those people talked from a pre science perspective. Their efforts were real, they really tried to penetrate in the nature of reality by logic , but with basic mistakes. Heraclitus was much more accurate. 

Imo the basic mistake come from the obligation of not contradicting Buddha because he's seen as holy, then they made a lot of logical jumps to keep the Buddha paradigm 

Edited Thursday at 12:22 PM by Breakingthewall

[VeganAwake]

@Breakingthewall 

I get what you mean.

I was just sharing the website, because I used to be stationed in the military near Robert Wolfe's home in Ojai, California. Apparently J. Krishnamurti also lived near by. Robert passed away in 2021.

Imo, nothing is a recipe or guide to live by........not Ajata, Jim Newman, Tony Parsons, Ramana or Buddha. They are just pointing or attempting to expose something.

 

Let me ask you a question.

Did anything matter before you were born? Was anything meaningful or meaningless?

When that body dies, do things still matter for the living?

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

Let me ask you a question.

Did anything matter before you were born? Was anything meaningful or meaningless?

When that body dies, do things still matter for the living?

depends on what "matters" means to you. If "matters" means emotional concern about what happens, then nothing matters for you if you are dead(obviously) but this is a view from within your current human emotional paradigm.

 If we broaden our perspective, that emotional concern about what happens would be the vector of the cause-and-effect flow of reality pointing in a certain direction.

Then you could say that for reality, it "matters" that x happens instead of y, simply because it points to x. You could also say that it makes no difference to you personally whether x or y happens, but reality is pointing to x.

Why? Because the unfolding of causality and form has created patterns that have a directional vector that we call "matters." Therefore, at that local point in reality, that x happens instead of y "matters."

For a cell, not dying matters, simply because it aims to not die. It makes no difference to you personally? Great,.then at the local point in reality called veganawake, nothing matters. But in other points matters. Matters is just preference, and in reality preference arises. 

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

Imo, nothing is a recipe or guide to live by........not Ajata, Jim Newman, Tony Parsons, Ramana or Buddha. They are just pointing or attempting to expose something.

I think that there could be a recipe, the question is avoiding the mistakes. Those Buddhist created their ideas thousands years ago, and they were geniuses for the level of knowledge that was possible in that time.

Imo all their paradigm aims to free the mind, but the problem is that those ideas have many blind points and contradictions that make the seeker stuck, closed in ideas like void, no self, etc. that's why Buddhism split in many contradiction branches. It's possible a perfect formulation, the key is avoiding what's wrong. 

Edited yesterday at 12:46 PM by Breakingthewall

[VeganAwake]

16 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

depends on what "matters" means to you. If "matters" means emotional concern about what happens, then nothing matters for you if you are dead(obviously) but this is a view from within your current human emotional paradigm.

 If we broaden our perspective, that emotional concern about what happens would be the vector of the cause-and-effect flow of reality pointing in a certain direction.

Then you could say that for reality, it "matters" that x happens instead of y, simply because it points to x. You could also say that it makes no difference to you personally whether x or y happens, but reality is pointing to x.

Why? Because the unfolding of causality and form has created patterns that have a directional vector that we call "matters." Therefore, at that local point in reality, that x happens instead of y "matters."

For a cell, not dying matters, simply because it aims to not die. It makes no difference to you personally? Great,.then at the local point in reality called veganawake, nothing matters. But in other points matters. Matters is just preference, and in reality preference arises. 

Sometimes choices that seem correct at the time, are later realized to be incorrect.

"Nothing mattering" loves preferences and choices.

It's the freedom to choose x every time if you want.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the faces of people who spent their entire lives trying to save the planet, only to have a giant meteorite the size of Australia smash into planet earth at 118 times the speed of sound, vaporizing every living organism in an instant?

Can you imagine watching that happen from a spaceship in outer space?

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the faces of people who spent their entire lives trying to save the planet, only to have a giant meteorite the size of Australia smash into planet earth at 118 times the speed of sound, vaporizing every living organism in an instant

I think it would the same, they have that drive and that's it, same than any living organism have the drive of survival and at the end it will die, it matters for them because "matters" is the drive that constitutes them. 

Imagine that you are a tribal man from 100 thousands years ago, and you were in war with the neighbor tribe as always, for you that war would matter absolutely, without the slightest doubt. You would be absolutely focused in that war with all your being. Why? Because the drive or life that you would be would push in that direction without any other option, that's life in its push fighting from the basic cell to the complex organism and to the civilization for the right of being, not because it's a law or any divine will but because who don't do, don't is, then who is, is because it wins. That's what "matters" mean. 

Maybe in the future we will be a kinda of cyborgs or energetic flow of information or interdimensional intelligence, then a) would be the same than b), so nothing would matter, but for now every breath matters.