Harmonious Emptiness

Renewing the Earth Forces spinning on Axle Rose buds all year round

Yes, this was my point about the bug thing.. what does it matter if we say it's in a state of non-existence vs. saying that it doesn't exist. It's the same meaning. To cling to a particular verbiage of how to express it only puts a lock on the mind and perception, and the desire to do this all the time is really a big mistake. It reminds me of a story about a monk was "almost there" and talked to a teacher about everything he knew explaining it all perfectly and then asked "so what else do I need to know? can you bring me to the other shore?" The teacher said "no, I can't, but the riverboat monk is the one who can." So the monk was brought to a monk in a boat on the river. The monk accepted him into the boat. The monk began to explain everything he understood with flawlessness. Then suddenly, the riverboat monk flipped the boat over. The monk was then enlightened.

It is like a lens in a way, because we experience because of these forms, which allow to see similar like a lens allows the picture to appear. But the picture is just a bunch of dots on a page. This is still just very metaphorical to explain it, but that's sort of how it works. More exactly, the attributes of everything don't have their own existence without the things they are a part of; thus, they all lack their own absolute existence.. though at the same time, they still show up in the picture. If you want to understand it well you'd be better off learning it from a real teacher at least in a book if not in person.. however, again, does this make any sense to you? Could awareness be a lens? This is a big question, imo. If you want a semantically correct answer to it, it probably won't make much sense either as it will contradict itself with "there's no awareness in emptiness, everything is just as it is" or something like that, but I don't see those answers helping you much to understand them. I suppose that's why it's said that direct experience is needed, but it is possible to perceive emptiness through logic, and then once you have perceived it you can figure out how to clean the window and you can keep cleaning it and cleaning it until it actually disappears and there is nothing separating you or distinguishing you from the other side. Now, when there's no separation, are you aware of what you're not separate from? Maybe not actively at least. Are you passively aware of it? To confuse things even more, that's kind of like me saying to.. Don King.. Don, I want you to be Don... How can he be Don when he already is Don? It doesn't really make sense.. I think the same goes for being aware of emptiness when there is no longer the separation. Now, when that separation is not entirely washed away, but the direct (rather than conceptual) experience has happened: Could the awareness be a lens? I'll say yes, but only because the window is still there.. k. that was some verbal gymnastics so let me know if this clarifies any of it.. Cheers H.E.

Next in line... steps up Cool wind cleans out her hair Cat hears prey in lane

Another way I've read of looking at this is in that same way that some martial arts teachers will say to punch through the object or a target behind the object -- to stand through the floor, so you're pushing against the gravity from under the floor. Just be careful as it might feel like you're going to break the floor as if all the weight is focused on a dot or something. Stranger things have happened..

I highlight what I think is fairly substantial to my position. However, how can you say they didn't have astrology when the temples were lined up with recurring star positions, and stars were significant in their religion? To my understanding their knowledge and mapping of constellations was very advanced and long standing for them to have built these temples as they did at the time they did.. Also, I'm not convinced that they didn't use chemistry given everything else they did with electricity, medicines, etc.

I understand this, but was really just trying to avoid that "but it never existed" answer. Is something that never existed in a state of non existence? I think it's perfectly fair to say yes even though it never existed.

To me, that's not evidence or proof of it's accuracy, not to say that you're implying otherwise. "[Europe's] "Greek Miracle," the beginning of our own civilized history, is 75% attributable to the Great Silk Road and access to Chinese civilization it provided" A large part of it, especially in regards to gun powder. However, the Greek scholars still knew that Kemet was the place to learn the most advanced knowledge of their time (to say nothing of our time). However, I'm not really at TTB to discuss these things as they are too contentious and controversial to hope for any accepted conclusions, in my previous experience..

1 You're saying exactly the same thing. Realizing it, merging with it.. does it have to be painted with the same gobbledyguk everytime? Is there no room for poetic implications? 2 When a bug is dead, is it in a state of non-existence? pretty much, if you can avoid getting so caught up in sematics that you end up missing the point. "if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable."

Now you said "It was first accepted by Bucharic speaking Copts in Egypt who transliterated Kimiya = Chemeia, pronouncing it as the Arabs did" but why would Kemetics use a Chinese word for something that they invented long before China in the historical timeline? Really, given the timeline, I wouldn't even be surprised if even the Chinese got their word from Kemet.

Informer, just wanted to check if this made any sense to you?

The question: And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility? The possibility that someone can realize emptiness and still have some scrubbing to do to see more clearly through samsara. Tempted or deceived by the senses.

So then you would say that the possibility does not exist.. I don't know.. I think it's still possible to get tempted or deceived if the prudence or earnestness wanes. Is this not why there are still afflictive obscurations until the end of the 7th bhumi?

Personally, I can tell you what -I- think the answer might be but this is only my perspective however incomplete or improper Clinging to an idea of no-self, maybe, if it is just the idea and not merging with the true reality of the self. Merging with the true reality of it, no.. there's no clinging when merged with the true reality.. to the 2nd question: if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable. The thing too is that the body is not the self, and the personality is not the self, so it's difficult for people to understand "how can you be here but not." But the thing is, that that self that would be receiving the state is not the self as well/either . So when this is realized, what self is there to be in the condition or to obtain any state ? Look at that self? Is it there? Is it really?? Who is looking? Who is asking?

Yes, thanks, I meant Celestial metaphorically (isn't everything...lol). And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility?

Personally, I'm a lot more inclined to believe that the words for alchemy and chemistry came from Kemet, the name, at the time, of Ancient Egypt where the alchemical process seemed to start around 6000BC or so. The Ancient Greeks were also very influenced by Kemet as seen in their adoption of their pantheon. Also, the Arabs added a lot to chemistry and math, but are more likely to have learned them first from the Kemetics who seem to have started them first and also spread their culture and knowledge around both actively and by accepting scholars from all around the world who knew "if you want to know the real ish, you gots to get to Kemet."

To avoid giving the wrong impression, first: I do not disbelieve in teachings of Emptiness, dependent origination, and no-self; or in the wisdom and liberation from suffering gained from them. Also, imho, their realization is an end in itself, the path and the goal, and not the end of the journey; and residual benefits are not superior to the realization.. I suppose they reflect each other inseparably or along that ideation.. "People with higher realizations struggle with even more fetters, for it is more that they see." Balancing on a stool... no problem. Now put that stool 60 feet in the air... Don't look down!

Has anyone heard of or read "The Yoga of Siddha Boganathar"? I picked up volume II, translations and discussions of his short poems about Internal Alchemy, written circa 400BC. There is legend of him studying in China too.. o_0

Another question in way of the OP When teachers talk about pride, vanity, conceit... They often talk about these things as though they were the self that does not exist. Now, I wonder, how often are they saying this just so that most people will understand the teaching from their current understanding (not knowing about dependent origination and Emptiness)? I think these ARE the selves that most people need to overcome in order to see Annata, at least they can't see Annata until they have seen the non-reality of these "dusts." I understand that the philosophy and practice go deeper than just this, but really, this seems to be the main obstacle, and one that many people who supposedly had higher realizations still struggle with. No? In fact, it seems to me like the purpose for understanding Annata is arrive at this other realization in order to combat worldly suffering. Maybe this is like a school A vs. school B type thing, but this seems to be the general center of the Buddhist vortex of teachings, imho..... also because without pride/vanity/conceit, there is natural Boddhisatva-like qualities, as well as tranquil outlooks on one's "suffering." Again, Buddhism goes beyond this, and some stages or siddhis might be met before, but it seems to be the door to Buddha Mind in its most earthly rendition. This would make Buddhism rather un-unique in some ways, those unique perhaps in it's central focus.. Okay.. blow it to bits.....

My only potential disagreement with this is that meditation should clarify and not dull the mind, whereas mindless actions can dull the mind. So, as long as the actions are done with clarity..

That's scary, 'cause the more tool the prez is = the more dangerous. If he will do whatever the highest greedy demons want they will take more chances to plant him in power.

Well said.

I agree. Like the awareness beyond thoughts during performance will not play the music, the awareness beyond thoughts during meditation is just a requirement for proper awareness, which is also just a requirement towards various goals.

So I'm not the only one.. It's strange sometimes during meditation or just a beta-aware state when the hum of the street starts to ring with symphonic cohesion and the different sonic frequencies start to resonate at their pitch and harmonize with others... I start to feel like I'm in the middle of it and have the power to hold it in tune or let it dissolve... Anyone else feel that before? Thought I might be nuts the first time it happened while just sitting outside in a downtown University campus.