What else is there to do, after being able to meditate on emptiness?

[Limahong]

On 7/3/2018 at 7:13 AM, Wu Ming Jen said:

Void is an important teaching. The void also contains.....Cranial Nerves, elephants, some dancing and also dream state stuff that are empty of meaning.

 

Hi Wu Ming Jen,

 

VOID - Taoism is a philosophy full of emptiness?

 

- LimA

[Wu Ming Jen]

4 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi Wu Ming Jen,

 

VOID - Taoism is a philosophy full of emptiness?

 

- LimA

Hi LimA, I would like to respond . Like maybe this way......

 

Internal Kung Fu uses internal practices to strengthen one’s energetic field and one’s internal “True Qi”. Its principle objective is emptiness, agility, roundness and softness. Wudang is its orthodox and traditional school. 

 

It contains profound traditions and philosophies of the Chinese culture. Its doctrine is centered on the blending of ancient Chinese concepts such as Yin-Yang, the Five Elemental Phases, the Book of Changes, the eight trigrams and naturalness with the fist principles and skills, the theories of gong-skill, actual combat and military tactics.

 

The history furthermore places importance on the concept of the universe as a whole, as a holistic body. It moreover regards the concept of the unification of Heaven and Human through great kindness of the Dao and the sublimation of the ten thousand things as its principal purpose.

 

The notion of “the Dao following the natural way” is considered its source. It applies methods to combine movement and stillness, to cultivate both the internal and the external, to unite opposites.

 

Wudang Kung Fu regards the ’Dao’ as its root leading to the specific practicing methods for fist skills. All theories of course must accord with the Dao‘s orbit, its circular movements, its transformations and circulations.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

15 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

 

can you experience anything that is not contained within your own consciousness?

 

Marbles (along with the rest of us) experiences things in his consciousness, including things that are not contained within it/him, though.

 

Otherwise Marbles would be God (which, arguably, he actually is e.g. from a Hinduist perspective, but I believe that for all intents and purposes, he is already operating to full capacity, having become the Lord of the Internet).

Edited July 6, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

24 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

 

can you experience anything that is not contained within your own consciousness?

Of course we can and do all the time.

 

Our senses detect something.  Our nervous system sends this detection to our brain.  It is only now that we actually experience it in our conscious mind.  Sure, this time factor is very small but it exists none-the-less.

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

14 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Marbles (along with the rest of us) experiences things in his consciousness, including things that are not contained within it/him, though.

 

Otherwise Marbles would be God (which, arguably, he actually is e.g. from a Hinduist perspective, but I believe that for all intents and purposes, he is already operating to full capacity, having become the Lord of the Internet).

Yeah, there are really two aspects of our awareness here.  The first are our thoughts.  They self-arise.  The second is our brain detecting input from our senses.

 

And awareness and levels of it are different for different folks.  (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)

 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

 

so the answere is no

Well, I guess I said that, didn't I?

 

The point I was trying to make is that there is a time differential between the time of a physical experience and the conscious recognition of that experience.

 

If we get totally drunk and lose consciousness we will still be having experiences but we will not be consciously aware of all the stupid things we are doing.

 

[Marblehead]

I'll stick with "yes".  And yes, that is my final answer. 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

 

 but here 

 

 

you are saying that the experience happens inside consciousness, don't you?

No.  I am saying that awareness of the experience happens inside our conscious mind.

 

But yes, thought experiences happen inside our conscious mind.  No sensual input needed.

 

However, if I put my hand on a hot stove, what happens first is that my hand is burned, then impulse goes to brain, awareness of being burned is had.  Some would call this living in the past because time has already pasted by the time we become aware of input.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

15 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

 

ok, different definitions. seems to me experience means the same as event to you

 

anyway, let me rephrase the question then 

 

can you perceive anything that is not contained within your own consciousness?

 

This has already been answered before:

 

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Marbles (along with the rest of us) experiences things in his consciousness, including things that are not contained within it/him, though.

 

Otherwise Marbles would be God (which, arguably, he actually is e.g. from a Hinduist perspective, but I believe that for all intents and purposes, he is already operating to full capacity, having become the Lord of the Internet).

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Neither the light rays nor what they have been emitted or reflected from.

[Michael Sternbach]

2 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

maybe i should have rather sent marblehead a pm 

 

i didn't expect that question to stir so many posts in return. but what i try to say is still connected to emptiness

 

It is a profound question. It warrants many posts.

[Michael Sternbach]

1 minute ago, Wuschel said:

 

huh? i'm not sure what you are trying to say, sorry

 

I am talking about the difference between outer and inner reality. The former includes all the 'objects' we are aware of plus some we are not aware of, as well as all their 'output' in terms of light, acoustic waves etc. that make them perceivable.

 

The latter includes our perception and interpretation of that output, as well as our thoughts, emotions etc.

 

Though I would be the first to agree the internal and the external are connected in wondrous ways, practically speaking, we must distinguish between them or we are in deep doo-doo.

[Limahong]

19 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

Maybe i should have rather sent marblehead a pm.

 

Hi Wushel,

 

I had sent a PM to Marblehead three days back  as I felt the "endlessness" in it all.

It is better that you have indicated sending him one.

 

19 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

i didn't expect that question to stir so many posts in return.

 

If you have perceived stirring, is it not logical to end it?

 

- LimA

Edited July 6, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[Limahong]

5 minutes ago, Wuschel said:

it is a dangerous question

 

Hi Wushel,

 

It is not - it depends on how you handle the question.

 

It can be handled sometime without words - in silence.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, Wuschel said:

yes, that's the best way to answer it - and maybe even the only way. to really look for the answer, through looking, not through thinking. exploring reality

 

Hi Wuschel,

 

Silence.

 

- LimA

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Wuschel said:

can you perceive anything that is not contained within your own consciousness?

Yep.  That is really rephrased.

 

Perception occurs in the brain so the answer must be "No".  Our brain is the focal point of all our perceptions.

 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Wuschel said:

maybe i should have rather sent marblehead a pm 

We are doing fine.  It's a good discussion.  Defining terms is oftentimes very difficult.  Others are participating in this thread and even more are just reading.  We should just continue as is.

 

[Marblehead]

Silence is for when the work is done.  Are we done?  Has the question been answered?

 

What else is there to do?  What?  After meditating on emptiness?

 

That last one is a strange question.

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

We are doing fine.  It's a good discussion.  Defining terms is oftentimes very difficult.  Others are participating in this thread and even more are just reading.  We should just continue as is.

 

Hi Dada-da,

 

Wuschel had PM me and in the midst of our communication I had indicated these to him:

 

"No you are not wasting your time/energy - to each his/her own perspective.

But be civil/humble in your arguments.

Marblehead is nurturing."

 

- LimA

[Marblehead]

I'm sometime humble too but not very often.

 

[Limahong]

17 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I'm sometime humble too but not very often.

 

But of course.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[wandelaar]

There is an easy Taoist answer to all those questions: keep it simple! Thinking is all right as a tool, but tools become useless without goals. The goals cannot be provided by the tools themselves. Actually no conceivable goal can be rationally defended as correct. Ethics didn't achieve any substantial results in more than two thousand years of study. When you don't feel some goals yourself, than for you there are no goals. This was also the case before you started to question everything, and it has nothing to do even with meditating on emptiness. It is our fundamental modern human predicament. There are no excuses: everyone has to invent and/or choose his own way of life.

[Marblehead]

6 hours ago, Wuschel said:

i see it like this. with silence the digging just starts

but i don't mean silence as no thoughts present, but as a being silent

Yeah, I did simplify that.  Silence can b the beginning of many things.  For example, my form of meditation is empty-minded meditation.  The beginning is verbal silence.  Then silencing the surrounding.  Then silencing the mind.  When the mind is silent one has attained empty-mindedness.  The empty cup.

 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Wuschel said:

 

so everything we perceive are perceptions, right? and all perceptions are created by consciousness/brain, right? what are the perceptions themself made of? is the perception of a dream-tree made of something different than the perception of a real-tree? or of a thought?

I saw this coming.  We have to include the concept of objective vs subjective reality in order for me to respond to your above quote.

 

So we have defined that all awareness occurs in the conscious mind (brain).  What about dreams?  They occur in the unconscious brain.  But at the time of dreaming they are just as real as our conscious awareness.

 

I think it would be necessary for us to have first viewed a tree in conscious awareness before we could imagine one in a dream.  (I may be incorrect here but it is part of this flow of thoughts.)

 

I will consider the dream state as being subjective reality.  This is contrary to objective reality as experienced by a well-functioning brain in full awareness.

 

Both are real to the individual.  But only objective reality is similar to what others experience.

 

Going back to the unconscious drunk:  While unconsciously drunk one can break their arm but they have no perception of it happening.  This is because the brain is not functioning.  No perception.  But when the drunk regains consciousness the arm is really and truly broken.  What happened?!?!?!  Don't know.

 

I would imagine that a tree, when perceived in conscious awareness or in the dream state, would be of the same brain functions.  So I suppose that brain is needed in order for us to have any kind of perception.

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Wuschel said:

and what is the difference between different perceptions, beyond the discriminating minds differentiations? is there a border between the tree that we see and the surrounding air? and is there a border between visual perceptions as a whole and accoustic ones and mental ones? or is the totality of perception just one bubble? one bubble of what? 

I can't go there with any sound statements as I do not have the knowledge to do so.

 

I would imagine that our brain knows how to discriminate between different inputs.  I can recall every imagining I heard Bob Dylan singing after eating a piece of cheese.  My brain knows that Bob Dylan wasn't singing but that I did eat a piece of cheese.