what is form, has no self, or existence either formed or not

[ion]

emptiness happens when just being aware of it's beings non-being without self and selflessly being infinitely the being-not's purest emptiness present being eternally not existing, so as emptiness the emptiness is; so it being actual causes its being which causes it to not be`which is the purest form of it......

 

if we are at all, then we are emptiness, all that is, is emptiness and emptiness is emptiness and because of that, there is no changer no change or changed changing, only the mutual arising of of the co-arisen whose existence is as being is emptiness...if you are, then you are emptiness, and emptiness is not...the formless Tao is emptiness, and emptiness is the middle way, but empty of . a middle, and empty of a way...

 

whatever is has happened only by emptiness ,there is no other way, but through emptiness that any thing appears to be being...for that which does not appear to be emptiness but appears as some thing having a being, that is tangible is never truly being what is mutually arisen and emptiness is..emptiness is what mutually unfolds without self that is not being...

 

what is not, can not have power of causation, so what appears to have power of causation, does not,and is not, and what does not appear to be being, that being the emptiness, whose being and the essence there within, being pure emptiness is what influencialy delivered mutually has which makes causation without a way of being but by its being, there is a principle that issues emptiness selflessly forth out and in t, and by way of that there is no cause to no-thing, there is only what is emptiness, and the principle essence of emptiness...

 

empty and within...all existences that are being, are emptiness, mutually arisen, with, by, or of it's co-arisen, and if what is here had arrival which was dependent on emptiness for being it...if what is, was caused by emptiness, then the cause is without being ,activity, self, or form, and is empty of meaning, or motivation, but issued into two mutually without self principle driven by the principle with the bringing forth, what has mutually arisen because of the principle essence within emptiness with, and of emptiness whose eternally existing into being... And not being

 

if we are at all, then we are emptiness, all that is, is emptiness and emptiness is emptiness and because of that, there is no change or changed changing only the mutual arising of of the co-arisen whose existence is as being is emptiness...if you are, then you are emptiness, and emptiness is not...the formless Tao is emptiness, and emptiness is the Middle-way, but empty of . a middle, and empty of a way...

 

whatever is has happened only by emptiness form and/or phenomenons arising mutualy happens with out a self spontaneously by way of the mutual arising who’s dependet on emptiness and the p[ureness of iuts essence being while nonm being when a thing has been come to have been known, then it’s mutually arissen coresponding compatables,there is no other way, but through emptiness that any thing has a been an object or any such else that has been percived and appears to be being...for that which does not appear to be emptiness but appears as a form, which as being one it as existing either as form or as not-form../.

 

form is not, and what isn't emptiness, isn't form nor is it not form...being, what is not, means not having reality as youre state of being and so form can not be the condition causing causation, so what appears to have causation, does not, and what does not appear to be being, that being the emptiness whose mutual arising has causation which makes causation without way of being, with that there is no cause to anything, there is only what is emptiness...all existences that are being are emptiness, mutually arisen, with, by, or of it's co-arisen, and what is here had arrival which was dependent on emptiness for being it...if what is, was caused by emptiness, then the cause is the principle who bound to selflessness without a sef without being ,activity, self, or form and is empty of meaning or motivation but unfolded into two with the mutual-ariser bringing forth and with what has mutually arisen into being emptiness...only by way of the principle and that even it being emptiness is emptiness...

 

[Marblehead]

You sure like that word "emptiness". I prefer "fullness" myself.

[GrandmasterP]

"So the self is the separate seeker that pursues everything that it thinks it can know and do, excepting the absence of itself. That absence is the emptiness which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the wholeness (paradise) that is longed for. "

 

( Tony Parsons).

 

 

 

{Me neither MH. I much prefer 'fullness'}

 

Edited July 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[sunchild]

i am that i am.

[GrandmasterP]

And that I am needs no excuses......

( All together now. Sing up!).......,..

 

Edited July 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

i am that i am.

Yeah, I would suggest that that is a fact.

[sunchild]

Yeah, I would suggest that that is a fact.

i do not care what you think or feel.

if i wanted/was open to your suggestion, then i would've asked you for it.

[ChiDragon]

Tao is not emptiness but an invisible form. Invisible does not mean emptiness. Tao can be visible only by the manifestation of all things that come into being. Tao is visible when all things are manifested. Tao is also there before all things come into existence and to be visible to them. Tao is visible which one cannot see but only by intuition or grokking through its manifestation. The existence of life or things is the manifestation of the fullest of Tao.

[Marblehead]

i do not care what you think or feel.

if i wanted/was open to your suggestion, then i would've asked you for it.

Well, apparently you are now very well aware of what I think regarding the above. You can be an ass if you want to. That would be your choice. Or, you could be a friendly, caring person and talk "with" people instead of "at" them.

 

So anyhow, If you don't want me or others commenting to things you say on this forum you should perhaps consider not posting any comments. If you remain silent no one will know you are here.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Marblehead

[ion]

You sure like that word "emptiness". I prefer "fullness" myself.

Non-being is emptiness, the principle within non-being is it's fullness and what gives it emptiness; it's fullness is the vehicle of the mutual arising which it is inseparable from, and is also emptiness.

 

 

"So the self is the separate seeker that pursues everything that it thinks it can know and do, excepting the absence of itself. That absence is the emptiness which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the wholeness (paradise) that is longed for. "

 

IF the self is, it is dependent on there being other, and they are dependent on form which is transient and temporal, and thus without the principle within emptiness/non-being which is not temporal or dependent on form, then the self and other are not. Self and other are not, even in relation to the other, for if one is not, it can not be the basis of the other, so one self being does not create another, and the other one not being cant support anything.

 

If what is, is not on the path of the principles arising through non-being''s being, then it is not.

 

If what is, is dependent on non-being for its being, and is being by way of being mutually arisen as the diversification of the principle, then it is, and if it is, it is non-being/emptiness which is inseparable from the principle and like the stream of its diversification, utterly without a self..

 

Form is perceived, what is perceived as form being is perceived from form and is temporal, and the perceiving and perception of it is transient and changing, changeable and dissolving and so its not. Beings that are formations are not, nor is what is perceived by them of forms.

 

The self being dependent on what is not, is not a being to begin with, but as long as it is being perceived its dependency is on that. If its being is reliant on what is temporal, its being is illusion, if it is reliant on non-being then it is, and it is without self.

 

 

Tao is not emptiness but an invisible form. Invisible does not mean emptiness. Tao can be visible only by the manifestation of all things that come into being. Tao is visible when all things are manifested. Tao is also there before all things come into existence and to be visible to them. Tao is visible which one cannot see but only by intuition or grokking through its manifestation. The existence of life or things is the manifestation of the fullest of Tao.

 

Non-being's being is emptiness the principle within emptiness gives emptiness its form, (which i s formless).

 

Non-beings being makes manifest the mutual arising of its co-arisen forms of non-being, yet the numbers are not form.

Emptiness isn't spacious like the emptiness within a space, but non-beings emptiness is vast without dependending on perception or being percieved for its emptiness.

 

Its non-being is it's existence which means that it is not a manifestation of form, action, or activity.

 

Form is dimensional space within dimensional space and dependent on dimensional space which is perceived as being, but it as a reality is not.

 

Form is, only in relation to form (which is space being within space).

 

Form is the formation of spaces within a perceived space, having come together into formation, and will once again fall apart and be no more, so its existence must be thought of as "in the past", which is "not here", and as, such has no real existence to take form of and in. It's existence is only perceived and what is perceived as an object or form is illusion/unreal.

 

If Tao had was or is a form, its form would be dependent on substance and space, or the comming together in formation as space as substance within substance as space; if Tao came together as the result of things, its being would be dependent on there being a predecessor, but the Tao has no predecessor except that which it is dependent on which is the principle within.

 

The principle within Tao is the first and only cause; the only cause is that there was and is the mutual arising of things as expressions of the principle within things, from Tao, the formless comes mutually the co-arisen being the 1 as the two and with that the manifestation through mutual arising comes all things that come in and out of formation as beings being, none of or dependent a form of anything for being, but all that is that is not illusion is born of this Tao that is emptiness, and all that is born of emptiness are emptiness which is as full of the principle as it is empty.

 

When the being of a manifistation is full, this means it has been known by it's predecessor (which is the principle within the manifestation expressing the principle,), the knowing of fullness and the mutual arising are one, and the principle within by way of Tao becomes more, and what it becomes is the same as what it comes from and what it is going to, all of which are Tao. The Tao is emptiness and its mode of becoming are empty and without being or form, and what it will be will be the product of the principle that unites all these as one, the principle within Tao that is Tao. Is empty and without form, formation or coming into being.

 

Its happening can be perceived but is not, and what it happens to can be perceived but has nothing happening to it, there is no self making things happen, no stuff having it happened too, just the nature of the principle within Tao causing all things through their mutual arising. Which are because of the emptiness of Tao and its co-arisen being non-being.

 

The being NOT of Tao, is it's being's suchness, it's itness being; therefore the Tao of non-being is the manifestation of the principles being, the principle's unseeable form's suchness being seen in this emptiness is the comprehension of its unknowable fullness, and that being is the Tao within's coming forth as the mutual arising of inseparable beings.

 

i am that i am.

 

Yeah, I would suggest that that is a fact.

 

And that I am needs no excuses......

 

If you were what you are because of who and or what you are, then you would be not. The self being I, and the I having self is an illusion based on forms and formations. If your youness is dependent on formation, then it is dependent what is unreal and illusory for it's coming into being, and is not from the source through mutual arising. If your youness comes into being because of formations, then the essence of your youness is transient and should be thought of as in the past. The past having no beingness is not.

 

If you are that you are, then the formations of forms and bodily systems that you Identify with as self are the excuses for your being, and what you are being. If what you are being is the excuse for that you are, and what you are being is the identity of who is being, then your existence is dependent on your existence already being. If you had been already being in order that you made manifest your own existence as the independent source of your own being, then that which created you being based on a form that was not, yet created, there for the "I am" s not and never will be. The self can not manifest its own self.

 

When the principle within formless Tao that gives it's emptiness it's form, makes manifest a suchness being, the virtue of the principle within is given to that suchness's within and that suchness is manifest because of the principle within it is within it.

 

The principle within Tao is un-created and everlasting originless non-being being, and without origination resting tranquilly always within the Tao, and so that which is called truly existing has the quality of not perishing or being dependent on something destined to dissolving, but instead is directly connected to, and is one with the foreverness who's likeness is perceivable within Tao's emptiness.

 

That you are as a fact can only be suggested, and if the suggestion is based on the form being perceived, then it will be perceived as being no more when what is perceived is dissolving, or when the perceiver stops perceiving or holding a perceived mental image as to be proof of the perceived things reality being.

 

A form requires and is dependent on things for being, namely spaces gathered within space, a perceiver, perceiving a perception of the object which is the subjection of space within space; with these things a form can be perceived...

 

When the perceiver is not subject to what they perceived, then there is no more perceiving of the thing, so the perception of being is in the mind only. In the mind of a viewer where no object or other is, (except by the imagining called memory recollection which is subjective and a conjured thing, not actually manifested and being;) a mental image imagined. So if there is nothing to be perceiving you as being, then you are not being and are not.

 

Is the "I AM" that is what you are ,in existence and real as the product of anothers imagination? If it is then you are dependent on that other imagining you, and the other is a form that is temporal and destined to disolve, and so effectively you are not.

 

This islike wise for the self perceiving itself, when you are not perceiving you, the self no longer is within you and you are not, so how can the "Iam that Iam" be that it is? It does not have existence unless that which it is is bares the imprint of the principle in which only that which comes from, and is emptiness, and emptiness is totally selfless and without self?

 

So being that the "I am that I am" requires other things that are not to support and maintain that is, what it is,then that what it is, is Not, and gives no existence for the "I am" to be.

 

Without self and other to perceive and imagine you being there, then there is no perceiver, no perceiving, and no perception., With self and or other perceiving you, your basis and what you rely on for being was formed, and is becoming unformed and so ithe forms that were relied on are not,; the formations are in the past which is not.

 

All that is is emptiness, the product of emptiness, dependent on emptiness and with mutual arising the passing of the principle into emptiness from emptiness.

 

If you are then you are the "I am, that emptiness is, was, & will be", none of which has self to claim emptiness as it's own being, so is not, because all that is, comes from emptiness and is emptiness. if it is form it is illusion, being illusion it has no power to cause and no dependents to support. Illusion is the basis of Not.

[3bob]

Holy cow!

 

You got all that MH? You will tested tomorrow at 1/2 hour past emptiness whether your plate is full or not.

[3bob]

Cows are holy in a way but...

Edited July 20, 2014 by 3bob

[silent thunder]

Well, apparently you are now very well aware of what I think regarding the above. You can be an ass if you want to. That would be your choice. Or, you could be a friendly, caring person and talk "with" people instead of "at" them.

 

So anyhow, If you don't want me or others commenting to things you say on this forum you should perhaps consider not posting any comments. If you remain silent no one will know you are here.

this one's cup is full.

[GrandmasterP]

Non-being is emptiness, the principle within non-being is it's fullness and what gives it emptiness; it's fullness is the vehicle of the mutual arising which it is inseparable from, and is also emptiness.

 

 

 

 

IF the self is, it is dependent on there being other, and they are dependent on form which is transient and temporal, and thus without the principle within emptiness/non-being which is not temporal or dependent on form, then the self and other are not. Self and other are not, even in relation to the other, for if one is not, it can not be the basis of the other, so one self being does not create another, and the other one not being cant support anything.

 

If what is, is not on the path of the principles arising through non-being''s being, then it is not.

 

If what is, is dependent on non-being for its being, and is being by way of being mutually arisen as the diversification of the principle, then it is, and if it is, it is non-being/emptiness which is inseparable from the principle and like the stream of its diversification, utterly without a self..

 

Form is perceived, what is perceived as form being is perceived from form and is temporal, and the perceiving and perception of it is transient and changing, changeable and dissolving and so its not. Beings that are formations are not, nor is what is perceived by them of forms.

 

The self being dependent on what is not, is not a being to begin with, but as long as it is being perceived its dependency is on that. If its being is reliant on what is temporal, its being is illusion, if it is reliant on non-being then it is, and it is without self.

 

 

 

 

Non-being's being is emptiness the principle within emptiness gives emptiness its form, (which i s formless).

 

Non-beings being makes manifest the mutual arising of its co-arisen forms of non-being, yet the numbers are not form.

Emptiness isn't spacious like the emptiness within a space, but non-beings emptiness is vast without dependending on perception or being percieved for its emptiness.

 

Its non-being is it's existence which means that it is not a manifestation of form, action, or activity.

 

Form is dimensional space within dimensional space and dependent on dimensional space which is perceived as being, but it as a reality is not.

 

Form is, only in relation to form (which is space being within space).

 

Form is the formation of spaces within a perceived space, having come together into formation, and will once again fall apart and be no more, so its existence must be thought of as "in the past", which is "not here", and as, such has no real existence to take form of and in. It's existence is only perceived and what is perceived as an object or form is illusion/unreal.

 

If Tao had was or is a form, its form would be dependent on substance and space, or the comming together in formation as space as substance within substance as space; if Tao came together as the result of things, its being would be dependent on there being a predecessor, but the Tao has no predecessor except that which it is dependent on which is the principle within.

 

The principle within Tao is the first and only cause; the only cause is that there was and is the mutual arising of things as expressions of the principle within things, from Tao, the formless comes mutually the co-arisen being the 1 as the two and with that the manifestation through mutual arising comes all things that come in and out of formation as beings being, none of or dependent a form of anything for being, but all that is that is not illusion is born of this Tao that is emptiness, and all that is born of emptiness are emptiness which is as full of the principle as it is empty.

 

When the being of a manifistation is full, this means it has been known by it's predecessor (which is the principle within the manifestation expressing the principle,), the knowing of fullness and the mutual arising are one, and the principle within by way of Tao becomes more, and what it becomes is the same as what it comes from and what it is going to, all of which are Tao. The Tao is emptiness and its mode of becoming are empty and without being or form, and what it will be will be the product of the principle that unites all these as one, the principle within Tao that is Tao. Is empty and without form, formation or coming into being.

 

Its happening can be perceived but is not, and what it happens to can be perceived but has nothing happening to it, there is no self making things happen, no stuff having it happened too, just the nature of the principle within Tao causing all things through their mutual arising. Which are because of the emptiness of Tao and its co-arisen being non-being.

 

The being NOT of Tao, is it's being's suchness, it's itness being; therefore the Tao of non-being is the manifestation of the principles being, the principle's unseeable form's suchness being seen in this emptiness is the comprehension of its unknowable fullness, and that being is the Tao within's coming forth as the mutual arising of inseparable beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were what you are because of who and or what you are, then you would be not. The self being I, and the I having self is an illusion based on forms and formations. If your youness is dependent on formation, then it is dependent what is unreal and illusory for it's coming into being, and is not from the source through mutual arising. If your youness comes into being because of formations, then the essence of your youness is transient and should be thought of as in the past. The past having no beingness is not.

 

If you are that you are, then the formations of forms and bodily systems that you Identify with as self are the excuses for your being, and what you are being. If what you are being is the excuse for that you are, and what you are being is the identity of who is being, then your existence is dependent on your existence already being. If you had been already being in order that you made manifest your own existence as the independent source of your own being, then that which created you being based on a form that was not, yet created, there for the "I am" s not and never will be. The self can not manifest its own self.

 

When the principle within formless Tao that gives it's emptiness it's form, makes manifest a suchness being, the virtue of the principle within is given to that suchness's within and that suchness is manifest because of the principle within it is within it.

 

The principle within Tao is un-created and everlasting originless non-being being, and without origination resting tranquilly always within the Tao, and so that which is called truly existing has the quality of not perishing or being dependent on something destined to dissolving, but instead is directly connected to, and is one with the foreverness who's likeness is perceivable within Tao's emptiness.

 

That you are as a fact can only be suggested, and if the suggestion is based on the form being perceived, then it will be perceived as being no more when what is perceived is dissolving, or when the perceiver stops perceiving or holding a perceived mental image as to be proof of the perceived things reality being.

 

A form requires and is dependent on things for being, namely spaces gathered within space, a perceiver, perceiving a perception of the object which is the subjection of space within space; with these things a form can be perceived...

 

When the perceiver is not subject to what they perceived, then there is no more perceiving of the thing, so the perception of being is in the mind only. In the mind of a viewer where no object or other is, (except by the imagining called memory recollection which is subjective and a conjured thing, not actually manifested and being;) a mental image imagined. So if there is nothing to be perceiving you as being, then you are not being and are not.

 

Is the "I AM" that is what you are ,in existence and real as the product of anothers imagination? If it is then you are dependent on that other imagining you, and the other is a form that is temporal and destined to disolve, and so effectively you are not.

 

This islike wise for the self perceiving itself, when you are not perceiving you, the self no longer is within you and you are not, so how can the "Iam that Iam" be that it is? It does not have existence unless that which it is is bares the imprint of the principle in which only that which comes from, and is emptiness, and emptiness is totally selfless and without self?

 

So being that the "I am that I am" requires other things that are not to support and maintain that is, what it is,then that what it is, is Not, and gives no existence for the "I am" to be.

 

Without self and other to perceive and imagine you being there, then there is no perceiver, no perceiving, and no perception., With self and or other perceiving you, your basis and what you rely on for being was formed, and is becoming unformed and so ithe forms that were relied on are not,; the formations are in the past which is not.

 

All that is is emptiness, the product of emptiness, dependent on emptiness and with mutual arising the passing of the principle into emptiness from emptiness.

 

If you are then you are the "I am, that emptiness is, was, & will be", none of which has self to claim emptiness as it's own being, so is not, because all that is, comes from emptiness and is emptiness. if it is form it is illusion, being illusion it has no power to cause and no dependents to support. Illusion is the basis of Not.

 

Will there be a handout or should we take notes?

 

All due respect bro but that all could only ever work as a really long Koan.

[nestentrie]

"Whether is better the gift or the donor?
Come to me,"
Quoth the pine tree,
"I am the giver of honor.
My garden is the cloven rock,
And my manure the snow,
And drifting sand heaps feed my stock,
In summer's scorching glow.
Ancient or curious,
Who knoweth aught of us?
Old as Jove,
Old as Love,
Who of me
Tells the pedigree?
Only the mountains old,
Only the waters cold,
Only moon and star
My coevals are.
Ere the first fowl sung
My relenting boughs among,
Ere Adam wived,
Ere Adam lived,
Ere the duck dived,
Ere the bees hived,
Ere the lion roared,
Ere the eagle soared,
Light and heat, land and sea
Spake unto the oldest tree.
Glad in the sweet and secret aid
Which matter unto matter paid,
The water flowed, the breezes fanned,
The tree confined the roving sand,
The sunbeam gave me to the sight,
The tree adorned the formless light,
And once again
O'er the grave of men
We shall talk to each other again
Of the old age behind,
Of the time out of mind,
Which shall come again."

[Marblehead]

this one's cup is full.

I changed my mind about my response to this. My mind was elsewhere when I initially responded.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Marblehead

[ion]

All due respect bro but that all could only ever work as a really long Koan.

 

Work for what?

[idiot_stimpy]

First one sees the formless and the formed.

 

Then seeing that there was actually no difference between them other than the perception held in their own mind.

[Marblehead]

Non-being is emptiness, the principle within non-being is it's fullness and what gives it emptiness; it's fullness is the vehicle of the mutual arising which it is inseparable from, and is also emptiness.

I can't disagree with what you have said here but I will say that you have found a very complicated way of saying it.

[z00se]

First one sees the formless and the formed.

 

Then seeing that there was actually no difference between them other than the perception held in their own mind.

 

I don't think it's complicated at all, i think it is saying it very clearly and leads to easier understanding of what you're trying to say. Thats how i'd explain it too.

[Marblehead]

Actually, what Ion has said is consistent with what I have heard from others regarding this concept.

 

I'm not saying "right or wrong" but just that I disagree with it. Life isn't that complicated, really.

[z00se]

Actually, what Ion has said is consistent with what I have heard from others regarding this concept.

 

I'm not saying "right or wrong" but just that I disagree with it. Life isn't that complicated, really.

 

Whoops sorry i meant Stimpy's post not Ions, i got confused myself hehe

[Marblehead]

Whoops sorry i meant Stimpy's post not Ions, i got confused myself hehe

I will welcome you to that group of people. I have been a member for a very long time.

[idiot_stimpy]

Separate heaven and earth. Then combine them.

[sunchild]

Separate heaven and earth. Then combine them.