he only thing you'll ever know is what you knew in life

[InfinityTruth]

So like it only makes sense that what you knew in life was your personal truth. It was tailored by perspective individual circumstance and so on.

 

 

 

Painfully obvious when high. Forgive me if that sounds dumb otherwise,

Edited June 12, 2011 by InfinityTruth

[Otis]

Not at all dumb. Good paying attention! Often, those things which are "painfully obvious when high" need IME to be seen when altered, in order to have them become obvious, the rest of the time, too.

 

These limitations (how little I have yet lived, seen, experienced, should claim to be an authority on) were a bit painful to first experience, but so liberating, too! Humility allows me to grow, which is so much sweeter than pretending I know what I do not.

[Non]

yea when I get high (on cannabis) all these realizations which are "ordinary" all of a sudden become extraordinary. Or I just start to get a direct experience of it all.

[doc benway]

So like it only makes sense that what you knew in life was your personal truth. It was tailored by perspective individual circumstance and so on.

 

 

 

Painfully obvious when high. Forgive me if that sounds dumb otherwise,

A nice resource for finding the profound in the obvious,

Is there knowing before and beyond life?

And if so, who is it that knows this?

[InfinityTruth]

Is there knowing before and beyond life?

And if so, who is it that knows this?

 

That's where I seen the hole in this logic. lol. It works great if you just think about what's right here.

 

Idk.

[Aaron]

That's where I seen the hole in this logic. lol. It works great if you just think about what's right here.

 

Idk.

 

In my opinion to really get an understanding of reality you're supposed to think about what's right here, so you're one step ahead of the game in my book.

 

Aaron

[InfinityTruth]

In my opinion to really get an understanding of reality you're supposed to think about what's right here, so you're one step ahead of the game in my book.

 

Aaron

 

Thank you.

[doc benway]

In my opinion to really get an understanding of reality you're supposed to think about what's right here, so you're one step ahead of the game in my book.

 

Aaron

I will offer a slightly different perspective - not to argue, necessarily, but I think it's a valuable distinction.

 

You can't understand reality.

No matter how much you think or what you think about.

You can only experience reality.

That is meditation.

[doc benway]

That's where I seen the hole in this logic. lol. It works great if you just think about what's right here.

 

Idk.

Are "you" right here?

If yes, how much have you thought about what "you" is?

"You" can think about what is right here and get pretty far out there if you approach it correctly.

The best place to start, IMO, is with "you"

[goldisheavy]

I will offer a slightly different perspective - not to argue, necessarily, but I think it's a valuable distinction.

 

You can't understand reality.

No matter how much you think or what you think about.

You can only experience reality.

That is meditation.

 

It's impossible to experience reality either. At best you experience an infinitesimally tiny fragment of reality.

[C T]

Does Reality run after mind? I'd say not.

 

Does mind run after Reality? Big time...

 

Like a dog chasing its own tail.

 

The wise Ones say mind will settle itself. We only think there is someone doing the settling, hence there follows incessant, never-ending activity. In truth, apparently, Spacious awareness arises without having to do anything. Glimpses of awakened nature, or nature of an everchanging Reality, arises from the gaps of empty awareness. Not that things are empty... only awareness is - and awareness is thingless.

 

 

From the Buddha: "To enter contemplation for the time it takes an ant to walk from one end of one's nose to the other, will bring more progress towards Realization than a whole lifetime spent in the accumulation of good actions."

 

If ever there is one thing that can be certain, is that death is real. When death comes, all that one accumulates will be as worthless as a handful of sand. No matter how much health and power you have, how high the serpent has reached, how still you have become, how masterful you have been, even if you can walk on water... you will still never evade death.

 

As Milarepa says, "In horror of death, I took to the mountains - again and again I meditated on the uncertainty of the hour of death, until one day I captured the fortress of the deathless, unending nature of mind. Now all fear of death is over and done."

Edited June 13, 2011 by CowTao

[doc benway]

It's impossible to experience reality either. At best you experience an infinitesimally tiny fragment of reality.

Perhaps.

I think one can also say that any contact with reality is contact with all of reality.

Time and space are conventions of thought and measurement, they do not necessarily apply. Daoist principles of mutual arising, Buddhist principles of dependent origination - both paradigms suggest this to me.

The universe implies me and I imply the universe.

 

In terms of what it is that we experience, that is a very intersting question.

I guess we would first need to agree to a definition of reality.

Certainly beyond my skill set - I'm not a philosopher by a long shot, my son is though!

 

The distinction I'm trying to make is that between direct experience - the sum total of our sensory input from all sources (experience), and the verbal and symbolic reflection and storage system (thought). I think the distinction is significant and worthy of consideration and can be very useful. And at the same time, I wonder if it is truly possible to separate these things totally - I doubt it, I think that is an artificial construct of thought like all the others...

[doc benway]

Does Reality run after mind? I'd say not.

 

Does mind run after Reality? Big time...

If there is Dependent Origination, isn't it both?

[C T]

If there is Dependent Origination, isn't it both?

It depends... _{Poor joke} yikes!

 

Would love to hear how you made the connection between DO pertaining to what has been said?

 

 

With reference to what i wrote, i just wanted to convey that Reality does not care whether we grasp it or not, but the everyday mind seems extremely fond of chasing after it, as though it can really be grasped?

 

By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?

[doc benway]

It depends... _{Poor joke} yikes!

 

Would love to hear how you made the connection between DO pertaining to what has been said?

 

 

With reference to what i wrote, i just wanted to convey that Reality does not care whether we grasp it or not, but the everyday mind seems extremely fond of chasing after it, as though it can really be grasped?

 

By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?

Actually, I liked your joke!

 

Hmmm, I suck at explaining Buddhist concepts but here's what struck me.

There is something we call reality, then there's this pesky mind that always trying to figure it out. And it seems like my mind is chasing after reality to explain it but can never quite catch it. And yet there is this thing called DO (or mutual arising in Taiji theory) which tells me that there is no mind without reality and there is no reality without mind. The two define eachother. The two give "existence" to eachother, so to speak, like light implies darkness, like every front has a back and so on. So there is no separation between mind and reality, there is no cause and effect.

Or should I say, cause and effect are happening simultaneously in both directions...

Mind is trying to explain reality because it is there to be explained.

One is implied in the other.

Reality is there to be explained because mind is here to explain it.

That sort of thing.

 

Anyway - that's what I was thinking.

 

Edit -

"By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?"

And as I'm sure you can tell how I feel about this from my posts about thought and experience (that is to say, I agree completely), but at the same time I wonder how true this is. Because, after all, those very thoughts are equally a part of the reality! I was just thinking about this as a result of the recent post by goldisheavy. It's all very confusing.

Otis?

What do you think?

Edited June 13, 2011 by steve f

[goldisheavy]

Perhaps.

I think one can also say that any contact with reality is contact with all of reality.

 

The one who says such things is not me. At least not right now.

 

Time and space are conventions of thought and measurement, they do not necessarily apply. Daoist principles of mutual arising, Buddhist principles of dependent origination - both paradigms suggest this to me.

The universe implies me and I imply the universe.

 

In terms of what it is that we experience, that is a very intersting question.

I guess we would first need to agree to a definition of reality.

Certainly beyond my skill set - I'm not a philosopher by a long shot, my son is though!

 

Alright then. You have a privileged position to ask your son a question he might enjoy answering.

 

The distinction I'm trying to make is that between direct experience - the sum total of our sensory input from all sources (experience), and the verbal and symbolic reflection and storage system (thought). I think the distinction is significant and worthy of consideration and can be very useful.

 

I don't believe there is such a distinction at all. Such a distinction is ultimately a delusion and it's only useful in the same sense any other delusion is useful, namely, it's fun to play with until you get disappointed with it.

[doc benway]

 

I don't believe there is such a distinction at all. Such a distinction is ultimately a delusion and it's only useful in the same sense any other delusion is useful, namely, it's fun to play with until you get disappointed with it.

I tend to agree with you on this.

The distinction is an artificial one but useful, at times.

[Aaron]

I will offer a slightly different perspective - not to argue, necessarily, but I think it's a valuable distinction.

 

You can't understand reality.

No matter how much you think or what you think about.

You can only experience reality.

That is meditation.

 

Hello Steve,

 

In my opinion, this type of understanding stems from experiencing, and it doesn't just stem from meditation, but from becoming aware of the world around you in this moment. Take Zen for instance, before one can experience Zen, one must first come to certain intellectual realizations that stem from contradictions that can't be answered. It is only by understanding these Koans (the riddles per se) that one can understand that understanding isn't necessary. Call it a paradox, but that's the gist of it. So you might say that you can't understand reality, but the fact is you are reality, so is my cat, and the spam and rice I had for dinner, calling it an illusion, doesn't mean it isn't real, it just means that it isn't the entirety of existence.

 

We can't escape reality either. We chop wood and carry water before enlightenment and we chop wood and carry water after. The real problem stems with getting hung up on the idea that reality is really that important. In the end what's important is understanding who you are and that comes from understanding what you are, which comes from understanding where you are and are not.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

Otis?

What do you think?

Hi Steve,

 

I think that when people talk about "reality", they're rarely talking about the actual world (even though they think they are); they're only talking about their models of the world. If I say "get real", I mean: get with my version of reality. Reality (as I hear people use the word) is utterly personal, and shared by no two people. It exists only in mind, as you say.

 

Which raises the question: is there even an actual world, something beyond the subjective reality? The only answer that makes sense to me is: it sure seems like it, but I can't say for sure.

 

Since there is absolutely no way that I can be sure that I am not, say, a brain in a vat, being fed experiences, or that I am perhaps part of a simulation or deep in a dream; therefore I must always beg ignorant as to what cause has generated my experience of reality.

 

I know that when I'm high or depressed or angry or horny or self-conscious or preoccupied, the world changes. Things look different; space feels different; pain, events, and people are received differently. Which suggests that my state of mind has a lot to do with how my reality appears.

 

What I think is within my capacity, is to witness how much I add my preconceptions and emotional weight to experience, and then progressively try to reduce the interference of my biases. IME, that alone makes my life a lot easier, more joyful, and more interesting. But I don't see how any experience, no matter how clear, no matter how profound, no matter how "of course", could ever be deduced to be "truth". There's never an objective yardstick of Truth to compare any experience to.

[C T]

 

Hmmm, I suck at explaining Buddhist concepts but here's what struck me.

There is something we call reality, then there's this pesky mind that always trying to figure it out. And it seems like my mind is chasing after reality to explain it but can never quite catch it. And yet there is this thing called DO (or mutual arising in Taiji theory) which tells me that there is no mind without reality and there is no reality without mind. The two define eachother. The two give "existence" to eachother, so to speak, like light implies darkness, like every front has a back and so on. So there is no separation between mind and reality, there is no cause and effect.

Or should I say, cause and effect are happening simultaneously in both directions...

Mind is trying to explain reality because it is there to be explained.

One is implied in the other.

Reality is there to be explained because mind is here to explain it.

That sort of thing.

 

Anyway - that's what I was thinking.

 

Edit -

"By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?"

And as I'm sure you can tell how I feel about this from my posts about thought and experience (that is to say, I agree completely), but at the same time I wonder how true this is. Because, after all, those very thoughts are equally a part of the reality! I was just thinking about this as a result of the recent post by goldisheavy. It's all very confusing.

Otis?

What do you think?

One thing's for certain... you know more about Buddhism than i do of Taoism, so you can rest assure that your views are well within the scope for serious consideration. For me anyway.

 

Thanks for clarifying the connection btw.

 

I understand what you have explained. Its just that in my experience, the settled mind, that one which stops chasing, is simple clarity... in this clarity, there is a sense of voidness, like feeling space, or the sky, empty of any essence, even the essence of Reality. Even so, in this emptiness, there is a heightened awareness becoming more and more acute as the mind gradually becomes more and more silent. So when thoughts settle, and one rests in this space of clarity, the mind ceases to create images of what Reality is, or is not. Discriminating/dualistic notions become disbanded with this settling of thoughts. Agitations of chasing and grasping after the needs to form conceptual images become less and less worrisome, and peace slowly arises from the depths and bubbles to the surface.

 

In such instances of settling, things are still seen, and felt, but not so much chattering remain swirling inside. Eventually, even the small whispers lose their grip... have you ever felt such moments of pervasive stillness before, Steve? I am sure many here have.... and its a great 'place' to find oneself - some go as far as to say its likened to the very center of a whirlwind.

 

Now, the question arises - does the whirlwind really have to exist for this stilled center to arise, or would we agree that it always exists? I am thinking here, relatively speaking, yes, the one brings about the existence of the other, sort of focusses it, but if this relative condition of mutual arising is transcended, what happens to the intrinsically stilled space within the revolving winds? Does it disappear when the rotations cease? Or does it remain essentially always present? If its always present, are we able to find a similar condition existing within the space of mind? Are we then able to touch and form some sort of connection with this primordial, deathless, changeless, empty yet tangible (so the masters tell us) space beyond words? Hmmm....

 

(Just to return to that part regarding focussing on the center - its clear that this stillness is that which is sought by and tried to be captured by many of us, and this is what causes the imaginary pain and unsatisfactoriness to arise. Imaginary because its always been there, but we still want to do more to try and get at this 'something' that has never been apart from us. Maybe this is why people create personal 'whirlwinds' just so they can taste and feel the stillness, and the peace? Silly though...)

 

Too many questions to ponder.... What say you?

Edited June 14, 2011 by CowTao

[goldisheavy]

I tend to agree with you on this.

The distinction is an artificial one but useful, at times.

 

I agree such distinctions are useful at times, but what are those times? When is it useful to distinguish direct experience from indirect? And when is it useful to question such a distinction?

 

As a reminder:

 

The distinction I'm trying to make is that between direct experience - the sum total of our sensory input from all sources (experience), and the verbal and symbolic reflection and storage system (thought). I think the distinction is significant and worthy of consideration and can be very useful.

[doc benway]

Hi Steve,

 

I think that when people talk about "reality", they're rarely talking about the actual world (even though they think they are); they're only talking about their models of the world. If I say "get real", I mean: get with my version of reality. Reality (as I hear people use the word) is utterly personal, and shared by no two people. It exists only in mind, as you say.

 

Which raises the question: is there even an actual world, something beyond the subjective reality? The only answer that makes sense to me is: it sure seems like it, but I can't say for sure.

 

Since there is absolutely no way that I can be sure that I am not, say, a brain in a vat, being fed experiences, or that I am perhaps part of a simulation or deep in a dream; therefore I must always beg ignorant as to what cause has generated my experience of reality.

 

I know that when I'm high or depressed or angry or horny or self-conscious or preoccupied, the world changes. Things look different; space feels different; pain, events, and people are received differently. Which suggests that my state of mind has a lot to do with how my reality appears.

 

What I think is within my capacity, is to witness how much I add my preconceptions and emotional weight to experience, and then progressively try to reduce the interference of my biases. IME, that alone makes my life a lot easier, more joyful, and more interesting. But I don't see how any experience, no matter how clear, no matter how profound, no matter how "of course", could ever be deduced to be "truth". There's never an objective yardstick of Truth to compare any experience to.

I was anticipating a simple, "I don't know."

But fortunately I got this wonderful response instead!

Gracias

[Otis]

I was anticipating a simple, "I don't know."

But fortunately I got this wonderful response instead!

Gracias

That's my unpacked version of "I don't know".

[doc benway]

... have you ever felt such moments of pervasive stillness before, Steve?

Yup - my teacher calls it the tranquil mind.

 

 

Now, the question arises - does the whirlwind really have to exist for this stilled center to arise, or would we agree that it always exists? I am thinking here, relatively speaking, yes, the one brings about the existence of the other, sort of focusses it, but if this relative condition of mutual arising is transcended, what happens to the intrinsically stilled space within the revolving winds? Does it disappear when the rotations cease? Or does it remain essentially always present? If its always present, are we able to find a similar condition existing within the space of mind? Are we then able to touch and form some sort of connection with this primordial, deathless, changeless, empty yet tangible (so the masters tell us) space beyond words? Hmmm....

Believe it or not, my view of existence is much closer to Emptiness and Dependent Origination than it is to any form of Monistic Idealism.

 

I'll answer your question with another question -

If the "stilled center" always exists, if "this relative condition of mutual arising is transcended" are we still within the realm of dependent origination or are we treading into Vedantic territory?

Can mutual arising be transcended?

Similarly, if this is possible

"Are we then able to touch and form some sort of connection with this primordial, deathless, changeless, empty yet tangible (so the masters tell us) space beyond words?" - is this not also suggestive of something akin to Brahman? Dao?

[doc benway]

I agree such distinctions are useful at times, but what are those times? When is it useful to distinguish direct experience from indirect? And when is it useful to question such a distinction?

 

As a reminder:

Excellent questions.