The Absolute Present

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[deci belle]

mr Marbles sez:

So are you suggesting that Vmarco is in fault by wanting to share his understanding? I really cannot figure out why you responded the way you did.

 

You who can only value understanding …what is your part in inconceivability?

 

Is that why you can only value philosophical understanding? Anyone can understand understanding. Why do you choose to ignore that enlightening activity is by virtue of understanding reality; Reality has as its function chaos and the unborn as its substance. It's just that you cannot entertain yourself with the real.

 

mr V does not understand inconceivability, yet acts as if he does …and because you can only make sport of understanding, you willingly follow along to secure your pastime which has no actual part in keeping the knowledge you yourself deny as being the basis of the classics alive.

 

You say the classics are philosophical works with an under and over-lay of spirituality~ ooooooh, what a concession!!

 

Enlightening being partakes of inconceivability as its function by virtue of impersonal awareness— yet you yourself do not see this expressed the classics.

 

Which is more profound, Marblehead— reason or nonoriginated selfless being?

 

Why do you insist that the classics are based on the shallow aspect and not the profound, hmmmmm?

 

 

 

ed note: add a (') in the second paragraph

Edited December 12, 2012 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

No. What I am alluding to is that some of the claims made by Vmarco be faulty and you seeing no fault in them statements is because of a fault in your appreciation of the situation...

You have a serious misunderstanding of the conversation that took place. Go back and read the posts again.

[Marblehead]

mr Marbles sez:

So are you suggesting that Vmarco is in fault by wanting to share his understanding? I really cannot figure out why you responded the way you did.

Is that why you can only value philosophical understanding? Anyone can understand understanding. Why do you choose to ignore that enlightening activity is by virtue of understanding reality; Reality has as its function chaos and the unborn as its substance. Its just that you cannot play with the real.

You too have a serious misunderstanding. Go back and read the posts.

[et-thoughts]

Why do you insist that the classics are based on the shallow aspect and not the profound, hmmmmm?

 

Could it be dew to the fact that those classics are based on the shallow aspects and not the profound, hmmmmm?

[et-thoughts]

You have a serious misunderstanding of the conversation that took place. Go back and read the posts again.

 

 

Posted Today, 10:17 AM

MooNiNite, on 11 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

i think Vmarco also possesses the truth...i think he is just trying to teach the way. kinda like a set of beliefs that lead to enlightenment.No arguement there. our main difference is that he looks at it from a Buddhist perspective and I look at it from an Atheistic Taoist perspective.

 

Yes, he is trying to share his understandings. I find no fault with that.

 

I believe you would find fault with trying to share faulty understandings... while approving of seeking to share correct understandings... thus my claim: One who finds no fault with the faulty shares in that understanding... hope that clarifies the point I was making...

[Jeff]

 

I believe you would find fault with trying to share faulty understandings... while approving of seeking to share correct understandings... thus my claim: One who finds no fault with the faulty shares in that understanding... hope that clarifies the point I was making...

 

That is not logically correct. One can just be indifferent or not feel the need to judge someone else's belief. It does not mean that they support the belief.

 

 

P.s. I apologize to everyone who responded to my post (page 1) for not responding back. Was travelling and somehow missed this thread. No point going back... Next time...

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jeff

[Marblehead]

I believe you would find fault with trying to share faulty understandings... while approving of seeking to share correct understandings... thus my claim: One who finds no fault with the faulty shares in that understanding... hope that clarifies the point I was making...

And who the hell, may I ask, promoted you to the position of sole holder of unflawed understanding?

[Vmarco]

Even in the pure moment, energy exists as potential.

 

 

(edit - deleted question. reread first post in thread)

 

No,....energy does not exist until the illusion of separation from Source. All energy arises from the motion to return to Source,...which it can never do. The condition of energy, even an imagined "potential of energy for one's palatability, cannot enter the Unconditional.

 

As an analogy, consider the so-called "speed-of-light",...there is no mass, no time, no energy,...even as a potential. From Unconditional Light's point of view, it travels no distance, in no time, and thus has no need of speed or energy.

 

If you want to uncover the light that you are,...you must realize what is Present, and what is not. There is no energy, time, mass, thought, 5 skandhas, or universe in the Present.

 

There is no Present in time,...it's impossible. Don't believe it,...prove it. Take the statement as deep as you can,...and you will uncover that all time is in the past,...and thus not real. Stop making things up just because doing such is more palatable for some belief. Be impeccably honest.

[et-thoughts]

That is not logically correct. One can just be indifferent or not feel the need to judge someone else's belief. It does not mean that they support the belief.

 

 

So you find the structure " I believe (X) thus my claim..." is not logically correct... Why?

[et-thoughts]

And who the hell, may I ask, promoted you to the position of sole holder of unflawed understanding?

 

I suppose that would be you, when you conceived the question...

[Jeff]

 

So you find the structure " I believe (X) thus my claim..." is not logically correct... Why?

 

That was not your logic structure... You said...

 

"thus my claim: One who finds no fault with the faulty shares in that understanding..."

 

Stating that if someone doesn't disagree, they automatically agree.

 

[Marblehead]

No,....energy does not exist ...

And, of course, Vmarco and I do not agree regarding this concept. Energy does not need us to acknowledge its existence.

[Marblehead]

I suppose that would be you, when you conceived the question...

You are so very wrong. You presented yourself to me as holding an unflawed understanding whereas Vmarco and I have a flawed understanding. Once again, you are so very wrong. We each hold our own unflawed understanding until we realize, if it ever happens, that our understanding is flawed.

 

Yes, you have your understanding. You believe it to be unflawed. You cannot hold to this understanding withour allowing each of us to hold to that same understanding. Else you are presenting yourself as the holder of the absolute truth. Ain't gonna' happen.

[C T]

And, of course, Vmarco and I do not agree regarding this concept. Energy does not need us to acknowledge its existence.

 

Thank goodness you can see better, Mr M.

 

"Energy does not exist."

 

Ya right.

 

Alert!!!! Spoofers abound.

[Marblehead]

Stating that if someone doesn't disagree, they automatically agree.

 

Agnostics say, "I don't know."

 

Apathetics say, "I don't give a shit."

[C T]

You are so very wrong. You presented yourself to me as holding an unflawed understanding whereas Vmarco and I have a flawed understanding. Once again, you are so very wrong. We each hold our own unflawed understanding until we realize, if it ever happens, that our understanding is flawed.

 

Yes, you have your understanding. You believe it to be unflawed. You cannot hold to this understanding withour allowing each of us to hold to that same understanding. Else you are presenting yourself as the holder of the absolute truth. Ain't gonna' happen.

 

Yup.

 

Another one who likes to bring his own shooter to the amusement stalls where he thinks we are all like those moving duckies.

[Marblehead]

Thank goodness you can see better, Mr M.

 

"Energy does not exist."

 

Ya right.

 

Alert!!!! Spoofers abound.

Vmarco loves his metaphysics so much that he sometimes gets it confused with his physics.

[C T]

Vmarco loves his metaphysics so much that he sometimes gets it confused with his physics.

 

Ever heard of tunnel vision, Mr M?

[Marblehead]

Yup.

 

Another one who likes to bring his own shooter to the amusement stalls where he thinks we are all like those moving duckies.

Hehehe. I sometimes do this:

 

[Marblehead]

Ever heard of tunnel vision, Mr M?

Hehehe. Really, belly laughs. I have actually been caught in that tunnel a few times.

[Vmarco]

mr Marbles sez:

 

 

mr V does not understand inconceivability, yet acts as if he does …and because you can only make sport of understanding, you willingly follow along to secure your pastime which has no actual part in keeping the knowledge you yourself deny as being the basis of the classics alive.

 

You say the classics are philosophical works with an under and over-lay of spirituality~ ooooooh, what a concession!!

 

Why do you insist that the classics are based on the shallow aspect and not the profound, hmmmmm?

 

 

Let's use another word,...ineffable.

 

The Tao is not ineffable. If The Tao was ineffable, Lao Tzu would not have been able to discern The Tao to write about it.

 

It is a matter of context. Buddha told the ignorant that the self is impermanent,...and yet he implied in the Mahaparanirvana sutra that the Other Self, the Tathagata, is permanent. The ego self of the six senses is impermanent,...nirvana is impermanent,...however, paranirvana is implied to be permanent.

 

The ignorant cannot understand The Tao. This is simply because the six senses can only know motion (energy). To understand the Tao, one must observe The Tao from beyond the six senses. To understand the Tathagata, one must transcend the six senses.

 

Lao-zu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go."

 

Buddha said, "the Tathagata does not come and go."

 

If you think The Tao is ineffable, then you allowed belief and religious indoctrination to blind you, and for you, The Tao will be ineffable. To understand stillness, one must uncover the stillness upon which their motion persists.

 

If someone speaks of God or Brahman as being ineffable or inconceivable, it simply means that they don't know, but wish to continue talking about it as if they did.

 

I disagree with the concept of ineffability or inconceivability,...such ignorant predispositions that truth is ineffable, and beyond mind, is fully incorrect. The notion that truth is ineffable is perpetuated by the ignorant, and their inadequate vocabulary.

Nothing is ineffible.

 

Most of the philosphic classics are indeed a hodgepodge of delerious imaginings. As Tilopa said: the HeartLight of the Ultimate Teaching cannot be revealed, through New Age discourses or preceptual Scriptures, neither from the Mantravada, Paramitas or Tripitaka; the HeartLight of Mind is shrouded by concepts and whimsy's.

 

HeartLight is not inconceivable,...comprehend the Heart Attack Sutra by Karl Brunnholzl, and most honest folks will uncover enlightenment in less than two years.

[Vmarco]

Thank goodness you can see better, Mr M."Energy does not exist."Ya right.Alert!!!! Spoofers abound.

 

Energy does not exist beyond duality,...energy does not exist in the Present. And because you (CT) believes it does,...not only has your ignorance blinded you from reality, but such discussion (prajnaparamita) so frightens you, that you feel compelled to respond with various forms of ad hominem, instead of any honest dialogue.If you have proof that there is an absolute Present in time,...please share. Or, as you ignorantly scoff at the fact that energy does not exist beyond duality,...please show your findings,...not your childish alerts and spoofer comments.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Vmarco

[Jeff]

 

No,....energy does not exist until the illusion of separation from Source. All energy arises from the motion to return to Source,...which it can never do. The condition of energy, even an imagined "potential of energy for one's palatability, cannot enter the Unconditional.

 

As an analogy, consider the so-called "speed-of-light",...there is no mass, no time, no energy,...even as a potential. From Unconditional Light's point of view, it travels no distance, in no time, and thus has no need of speed or energy.

 

If you want to uncover the light that you are,...you must realize what is Present, and what is not. There is no energy, time, mass, thought, 5 skandhas, or universe in the Present.

 

There is no Present in time,...it's impossible. Don't believe it,...prove it. Take the statement as deep as you can,...and you will uncover that all time is in the past,...and thus not real. Stop making things up just because doing such is more palatable for some belief. Be impeccably honest.

 

Like you, I am sharing my experiences (not making anything up). I am not Buddhist (more of a light/energy guy), but i would agree that as one dives deep into what could be called the pure state, there is no "time". Time has a specific energy feel as you go very deep. But, for me the pure stuff is bubbling with potential. That spilling over is what gives us creation/reality. The pure stuff is not "separate" from existence, with all manifest (apart of) from it.

 

A question... Do you experience the "light" during your normal day or only during meditation?

 

Also, the "light that I am" has no direct correlation to light in what we call existence, so I don't see the usefulness of the analogy.

 

Thanks.

 

 

P.s. no beliefs... Just exploration...

[C T]

Energy does not exist beyond duality,...energy does not exist in the Present. And because you (CT) believes it does,...not only has your ignorance blinded you from reality, but such discussion (prajnaparamita) so frightens you, that you feel compelled to respond with various forms of ad hominem, instead of any honest dialogue.If you have proof that there is an absolute Present in time,...please share. Or, as you ignorantly scoff at the fact that energy does not exist beyond duality,...please show your findings,...not your childish alerts and spoofer comments.

 

With you, there is no dialoging, Vmarco. Same remark applies to that poster, ET thought.

 

Anyone who even shows the slightest hint of disagreeing with you gets shoved into the 'ignorant' department.

 

Where is the open ground for having a dialog, you tell me.

 

Of course, its hard for you to even contemplate this, what with your narrow allowance band.

 

But i am only thinking aloud here... even then, i fear being classed as an ad hominem attacker, yet, there you are, hanging ever so tightly to your 'no present in time' angle, which, as a point for discussion, is completely without basis. Why? Simple... Its too absolute. When statements are that extreme, one begins to question the validity of the source, and also, at a certain point, the whole thing just becomes exasperating -- one either agrees, or disagree, and in both instances, its like being sandwiched between two walls. On one side, there's Vmarco, and on the other, there's also Vmarco.

 

eughhh... how very uninteresting. Perhaps what would reignite interest would be to take your paradigm and translate it into a practical tool which can move someone to say, "Hey! That's exactly what i needed to hear to get me one step further in my practice!" Heck no, with you, its like, "No one here knows shit except me." Thats what is wafting thru the air.... see, hombre?

 

So, pray tell... who's scoffing at who?

Edited December 12, 2012 by C T