Vajrahridaya Posted August 15, 2010 Yuanwu (12th century China) and others around the same time stipulate that after the initial awakening, there's a wait of about 20-30 years before a positive and substantive contribution can be realized. If I want to realize the connection between consciousness and my sense of location in space, all I have to do is start to lose my balance; to have the occurrence of consciousness empower reciprocal and other activity in the body through the sense of location as consciousness takes place, requires rewiring synapses to accept the lack of a doer other than place with all that implies. At the same time there is the doer as you are indeed the owner of your own karmas... in a dependently originated/empty/luminous sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Foote Posted August 15, 2010 At the same time there is the doer as you are indeed the owner of your own karmas... in a dependently originated/empty/luminous sense. How 'bout this?- "Then a reasoning arose in the mind of a certain monk thus: 'it is said, sir, that material shape is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, the habitual tendencies are not self, consciousness is not self. Then what self do deeds affect that are done by not-self?' Then [Gautama]... addressed the monks, saying: 'this situation exists, monks, when [some man here]... may deem to go beyond the Teacher's instruction thus (repeats the question as above). You, monks, have been trained by me (to look for) conditions now here, now there, in these things and in those." (MN III 19, Pali Text Society volume 3 pgs 68-69) Ok, this is not exactly your point, but I have tended to regard all such questions about the interchange between not-self and self as beyond the Gautamid's analysis of suffering, along the lines of Godel's incompleteness theorem (which says that if your axioms don't allow any contradictions to be derived from them, then you cannot generate the entire known structure of mathematics from that set of axioms). Thus, the Gautamid's analysis allows the phenomena in the five groups to be described as not self, and he says "for one who knows thus, sees thus by means of perfect wisdom, there is no "doer" with regard to this consciousness-informed body". At the same time, his analysis is intended to describe the origination of a station of consciousness from ignorance, and the subsequent chain of events that leads to grasping in the five groups, and his analysis doesn't extend beyond the cessation of suffering. That's why he responds to the question above by disallowing it, and then saying "you monks have been taught to look for conditions now here, now there, in these things and in those". The conditions he refers to I assume are the conditions of each link of the chain of dependent causations, and the things are the links in the chain themselves. What does it mean, that he saw past lives and future rebirths, in the wee hours of the morning? What does it mean, that he sought escape from suffering through the pure life, and spoke of once-returners and non-returners? I can only assume that he was accutely aware that extending his analysis beyond the conditions and things associated with suffering could result in contradiction, and that the distinction that was made in the recording of his teachings between truths of suffering and the fundamentals of a pure life (sutta versus vinaya)reflects an accommodation between the consistent and incomplete analysis of suffering and the inconsistent but complete overview of known relationships in the human phenomena. choke me with a spoon, if I've said too much! ha ha! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 15, 2010 OP: The web of Dependent Origination. The statement "prove that I'm really talking to you" is framed in such a way that it is, by definition, impossible to prove logically. You don't have to "really" be talking to me for me to know that if I sprayed you with a hose, you'd sputter and shut up for a while. This isn't avoiding the question. The very fact that I can know this with near certainty makes "reality" vs. "unreality" meaningless notions that exist only in the human imagination. (unless I'm dreaming, you're secretly a cyborg, etc etc. such mistakes in tracking the intersubjective causal continuum results from incomplete information, lapses in perception and awareness. these can be corrected by noting how the mandala of sense-experience reacts to "your" inputs, not that you're "other" than it.) This approach to phenomenological analysis is common to both mainstream science and Buddhism IMHO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 16, 2010 choke me with a spoon, if I've said too much! ha ha! I'll make it a golden one! Kidding... I was merely talking about self responsibility during the journey, eh? Quite relative my Dharma bro. Nice statements though, I cannot find fault in any of it except the choking you with a spoon bit... HA! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 16, 2010 OP: The web of Dependent Origination. The statement "prove that I'm really talking to you" is framed in such a way that it is, by definition, impossible to prove logically. You don't have to "really" be talking to me for me to know that if I sprayed you with a hose, you'd sputter and shut up for a while. This isn't avoiding the question. The very fact that I can know this with near certainty makes "reality" vs. "unreality" meaningless notions that exist only in the human imagination. (unless I'm dreaming, you're secretly a cyborg, etc etc. such mistakes in tracking the intersubjective causal continuum results from incomplete information, lapses in perception and awareness. these can be corrected by noting how the mandala of sense-experience reacts to "your" inputs, not that you're "other" than it.) This approach to phenomenological analysis is common to both mainstream science and Buddhism IMHO. Interesting. I do find it good to do the process of analysis internally though until it's really understood on an experiential level in the now and virtue becomes the natural outcome as one really experiences connection with others and compassion fills the heart. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 16, 2010 Interesting. I do find it good to do the process of analysis internally though until it's really understood on an experiential level in the now and virtue becomes the natural outcome as one really experiences connection with others and compassion fills the heart. That is actually rather lovely. I hope you took the time to read what you wrote. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Foote Posted August 17, 2010 That is actually rather lovely. I hope you took the time to read what you wrote. Peace & Love! Yes, quite lovely the sentiment there, I agree; reminds me of this horse, for no reason at all: horse kung-fu ok, just kidding about the kung-fu part... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2010 Yes, quite lovely the sentiment there, I agree; reminds me of this horse, for no reason at all: horse kung-fu ok, just kidding about the kung-fu part... All right!!! A new martial arts style. Horse style kung fu. You love your enemy into submission. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
