True meaning of Non-Dual

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Sahaja said:

The non dual saiva tantrics take a different view. Man is actually is actually a manifestation of “God -Siva/Sakti” or consciousness  in a limited form.. Consciousness/God uses this restricted form to rediscover himself (Lilla) through the sheddings of these self limitations. Process of recognition of this is the insight associated with emancipation from these restrictions and return to true nature.

 

just giving a different view.

If we use the Kashmir Shaivism paradigm, shiva becomes jiva by his own volition. And jiva realizes he is shiva also by shiva’s own volition. 
 

 

[silent thunder]

Dropping pearls @dwai

Thank you for sharing!

[Daniel]

18 hours ago, Bindi said:

Given nearly infinite paths of connection from the heart (to the spiritual heart?) why would so few actually arrive? 

 

In general, I think many do, but it is a transient experience which is a glimmer of what is possible.  

 

In particular, everyone is different.  Eventhough there are nearly infinite paths of connection from the heart, that does not mean that each individual is inclined towards of all of those paths.  Also, these paths are an opportunity.  Even the glimmer of the infinite is itself infinite which greatly reduces the urgency of the pursuit.  Because of this, many do not feel compelled to probe any further beyond what happens naturally.

 

Quote

“You cannot know it (Heart) with your mind… You cannot realize it by imagination when I tell you here is the centre. The only direct way to realize it is to cease to fantasize, and try to be yourself. When you realize it, you automatically feel that the centre is there. This is the centre, the Heart, spoken of in the scriptures as hrit-guha-aral [Grace in the cave of the heart] ullam [‘that which is’, the heart].” ~ Ramana Maharshi

 

Beautiful.  The answer to your question below is in the quote above.

 

Quote

I’d be curious to hear how the intellect might traverse the heart which sits above the spiritual heart. 

 

It doesn't need to traverse.  Spirit is omnipresent and concurrent.  "The centre is there."  Here, there, everywhere, always and forever.

 

The intellectual path is nearly infinitely broadening the path.  In this way, 1 path is equivilant to nearly infinite paths.  But there are nearly infinite obstacles to achieving this goal.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

19 hours ago, dwai said:

You are missing the point I’m afraid.

 

Have no fear, friend, I have not missed the point.  The point is "what is the true meaning of non-dual?"  You brought 2 statements of meaning.  Both are categorical.  In order for them to be literally true, there can be no valid counter-examples.  I brought valid counter-examples.  There are 2 and only 2 options if the true meaning of non-dual is being presented.

1. The statements brought will need to be adjusted to exclude any and all counter-examples.
2. The statements are qualified as non-literal ( figurative or exaggerated for effect ).

 

On 11/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, dwai said:

the student has to explore the validity of this realization by trying to shake the sense of certainty it brings to them. This happens through repeated logical refutations they must work through until there is no doubts left about their true nature as awareness itself. 

 

If we are at the stage of logical refutation, then, hopefully my posts are considered accurately in the intention to which they are being written.  In some ways it's accurate for you to adopt the role as teacher, and for me to adopt the role as student, but, in some ways this is potenntially problematic.  The student loves their teacher, wants to please them, and eventually they are likely to acquiesce for a number of other reasons besides what you have written.  Primarily, the student will have become exhausted.

 

In each and every discussion I have had regarding the meaning of non-dual, my conversation partner exhausts long before me.  Often hostility is projected on to me, when, that is not happening at all.  Being seperated by a screen is fertile ground for these sort of projections.

 

What's actually happening, imo, is the individual I am speaking with has adopted the "teacher" role.  Because of this they project the "student" role onto me.  My objections are assumed to be hostile, because, a student would not naturally challenge their beloved teacher unless it is out of hostility.  ( Although I do reserve the right to have natural reactions, specifically a reaction of frustration when time spent writing a reply is determined to be wasted because it is not read and the individual is simply preaching from a virtual pulpit. )

 

These are the faults of the teacher-student model for this discussion.  Instead a much better model is ... sparring partners.  In my community there is an expression which translates to "debate in heaven's name" or "for the sake of heaven".  It is a partnership.  It is teamwork.  The two ( or more ) are ascending together in a spiral where each one adopts the other position and attacks it.  Then they trade roles.  Each of the pair learns both sides of every argument for the purpose of co-rising together.

 

I will be so happy for you and with you to acheive the goal of presenting the true meaning of non-dual.  I will gleefully laugh in supreme joy and pleasure after being knocked to the ground if I am looking up at what we have built together.   But I will not quit, and I should not quit until the the task is complete.  This is for both of our benefit.  It is oppositional, which is out of character for the student, but, is natural, normal, and encouraged for the sparring partner.  If we work together, only good things can result.  It is not hostile in any way.    

 

Quote

What is not known is going to be known, and when it comes into the mind (through the various instruments of knowledge) it is also in the domain of awareness.

 

"What is not known is going to be known"  <----- maybe, maybe not.  The reality of what is unknown is independent of awareness of it.  I gave you an couple of good examples.  

 

Quote

It is pointless to ask why something is not known and then known. Because something that is knowable but is temporarily unknown, it is not outside the realm of awareness. It is simply not in the domain of the mind, until it is known. 

 

I didn't ask why something is known or unknown.  I gave examples of phenomena which pre-date awareness.

 

Regarding a realm of awareness:  if this is defined as the combined collection of all that is known AND all that is unknown, that is a way to move forward.   If that is the intended meaning, please let me know.

 

Regarding the domain of the mind:  what you've written confirms that there are at least 2 minds, because, I know things which you do not.  Please confirm?

 

 

Quote

I think it is very important to understand the difference between the mind and awareness/consciousness. Mind is a stream of thought objects. Awareness is that which makes knowing possible. To claim something as known or unknown too requires awareness. Not awareness of this or that, but pure object-less awareness. 

 

Sure, but that is assuming "unknown" is a positive assertion of an object.  Example: It, the object, is unknown.  This only occurs after the object exists in thought.   The "unknown" is not a positive assertion.  Is it completely outside of awareness.  I can post repeatedly volumes of examples of ideas which are completely disconnected from your awareness.  You would never ever be able to claim them as "unknown" because you do not know them.  Their existence pre-dates your awareness of them.

 

On 11/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, dwai said:

Nonduality means nothing is apart from awareness

 

One way to resolve the problem is to qualify this to an individual's experiences.  You previously used the word for what is known as a "thought object".  Let's use that instead of "thing".

 

"Nonduality means that no thought is apart from awareness."  

 

What do you think of this?  It's true and there are no counter-examples.  Is there anything lost by defining it this way?  The only problem I am seeing is that it is no longer profound.  It's obviously true.

 

On 11/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, dwai said:

every thing is made up of, and is an appearance of awareness to awareness

 

Similarly,  this phrase is much much better if "thing" is replaced with "thought" per what you have written.   

 

"every thought is made of and is an appearance of awareness to awareness"

 

"awareness to awareness" is still a problem.  This is a problem when considering inanimate objects which show no signs of awareness.

 

On 11/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, dwai said:

There is no thing that can exist apart from awareness

 

This is a restatement of the first.  When "thing" is replaced with "thought" it is true and consistent. 

 

Also, when a "thing" is a nothing more than a thought, these concepts naturally and automatically are limited to individuals.  Each indivdual has their own mind, their own awareness, their own thoughts, their own experiences.  All of these can be understoodd as singular non-dual unit per individual without any logical contradiction at all.  But there are many different individuals, objects, phenomena which are beyond this inner non-duality.    

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

On 11/21/2023 at 12:18 PM, Daniel said:

First, thank you for the very detailed write-up.
 

I understand what is written here, but, this is not literally true, correct?  Perhaps in the past ancient philosophers did not consider what was happening beneath the surface of a distant star?  Or, maybe they simply did not care about what was happening "there" for various reasons.  I'm not criticising, because, there is good reason not to concern oneself with what is happening far beyond one's awareness.  On the other hand, I think there are good reasons not to deny that there is a great deal which is apart from awareness.

 

 

 

When action comes out of the location of awareness, apart from any habit or exercise of volition, then that location incorporates the senses.  The placement of awareness and the action out of location incorporates all of the senses, and even what is beyond the boundaries of the senses, at times. 

Yes, action out of the location of awareness must be experienced to be believed.

That to me is why it might be said that there is nothing apart from that awareness, it's nondual in that sense. There is no actor apart, only awareness.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

On 11/21/2023 at 2:04 PM, dwai said:

 

And how do YOU know that? 
 

How do you KNOW that? 
 

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Have no fear, friend, I have not missed the point.  The point is "what is the true meaning of non-dual?"  You brought 2 statements of meaning.  Both are categorical.  In order for them to be literally true, there can be no valid counter-examples.  I brought valid counter-examples.  There are 2 and only 2 options if the true meaning of non-dual is being presented.

1. The statements brought will need to be adjusted to exclude any and all counter-examples.
2. The statements are qualified as non-literal ( figurative or exaggerated for effect ).

Your counter-examples are non examples because they don’t make any sense. Any experiment you set up to prove/disprove is happening in your mind lit up by awareness. So nothing is happening outside awareness at all.  
 

One counter question that people ask often in response to nondual statements is, “if all is in awareness alone, then you must know everything/every thought in all minds!” 
 

That misses the point again,  since one-many (mind/phenomena) are in the realm of appearance. Minds themselves are appearances, as is the idea of one/many. So in the story that projects this multiplicity, it is perfectly logical that there be “separate” minds, each with its own set of discrete set of objects flowing through. So one mind, even though realized about its

true nondual nature, does not know what is in another mind. 
 

To elucidate further, ignorance and realization happens in the “individual” mind. Awareness is always nondual and there is never any ignorance there. This ignorance of the mind is basically the result of this projection/appearance.
 

Now one might ask, “Why does it happen?”  To that there is no answer that can be satisfactory to the inquiring mind, because the question “why” itself is at the root of this ignorance. It is a self-perpetuating problem. Instead of asking “why?”, a better question would be “whence?”

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by dwai

[Apech]

I would just like to put it on record that in none of my discussions on non-dualism did I consider my self in a teacher student relationship.

[liminal_luke]

It´s as if someone set out to prove chocolate doesn´t exist.  This person´s logic was impeccable, their will to debate seemingly endless.  In the end, the chocolate believers were forced to give up in the face of the superior intellect of the chocolate skeptic.  Powering down their computers, they wiped their mouths with dirty brown napkins and sliced up more delicious cake.  So good!

Edited November 22, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It´s as if someone set out to prove chocolate doesn´t exist.  This person´s logic was impeccable, their will to debate seemingly endless.  In the end, the chocolate believers were forced to give up in the face of the superior logic of the chocolate skeptic.  Powering down their computers, they wiped their mouths with dirty brown napkins and sliced up more delicious cake.  So good!

But if the cake is a chocolate cake then can we say that the cake can exist independently of the chocolate - or should we say it is not real chocolate but a chocolate taste that substantiates the cakes nature???????

[liminal_luke]

Just now, Apech said:

But if the cake is a chocolate cake then can we say that the cake can exist independently of the chocolate - or should we say it is not real chocolate but a chocolate taste that substantiates the cakes nature???????

 

It´s Nutella!  

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Your counter-examples are non examples because they don’t make any sense.

 

Let's work on the counter examples.  If those can be refuted, then, that will be a magnificent step forward.  Agreed?

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

So one mind, even though realized about its true nondual nature, does not know what is in another mind. 

 

From this the nonduality is limited to the individual's mind.  There are many different minds.  There is a great deal which is beyond your awareness and my awareness.  You don't know it all, and I don't know it all.  Agreed?

[Daniel]

32 minutes ago, Apech said:

I would just like to put it on record that in none of my discussions on non-dualism did I consider my self in a teacher student relationship.

 

Sorry if it wasn't clear:

 

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Often hostility is projected on to me, when, that is not happening at all.  Being seperated by a screen is fertile ground for these sort of projections.

 

What's actually happening, imo, is the individual I am speaking with has adopted the "teacher" role.  Because of this they project the "student" role onto me.  My objections are assumed to be hostile, because, a student would not naturally challenge their beloved teacher unless it is out of hostility.  ( Although I do reserve the right to have natural reactions, specifically a reaction of frustration when time spent writing a reply is determined to be wasted because it is not read and the individual is simply preaching from a virtual pulpit. )

 

I'm talking about when the projection of hostility is occuring.

 

24 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It´s as if someone set out to prove chocolate doesn´t exist. 

 

or... to help them make the very best chocolate cake... since it seems so important to them. 

[Daniel]

28 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It´s as if someone set out to prove chocolate doesn´t exist

 

Did I start this thread?

[liminal_luke]

@Daniel

 

I half-regret my cake post because it feels a little bit oppositional and ornery to me now -- qualities that my better self prefers not show up in my postings.  I guess I´m just wondering what your stake is in this subject, not that it´s really any of my business, I guess.  But if you´d care to share a little more about why this topic means something to you, I´d appreciate it.  Is it just that you enjoy the debate as an intellectual exercise? Or do you see something pernicious, even evil, in Buddhism and other forms of spirituality that you feel called to root out?  

 

There are many things that I don´t agree with but I mostly let them lie.  For instance, Christianity as it´s commonly practiced feels icky to me but I don´t bother to engage with prostelitizers.  Is there something that´s motivating your avid participation in these threads about non-dualism?  Or perhaps you´re just having fun?

 

You don´t owe me or anybody an answer to these kinds of questions, obviously, but if you´d care to share I am curious.

 

LL

[dwai]

15 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Let's work on the counter examples.  If those can be refuted, then, that will be a magnificent step forward.  Agreed?

 

 

From this the nonduality is limited to the individual's mind.  There are many different minds.  There is a great deal which is beyond your awareness and my awareness.  You don't know it all, and I don't know it all.  Agreed?

Nonduality realization is always in an individual’s mind. 
 Now we have to be careful about the term “awareness” because that which is referred to in nonduality teachings is not “to be aware of any particular thing” but rather “pure object-less awareness” (think of it  like light that illuminates for example’s sake). 

So I don’t disagree that your mind is yours and distinct from mine. That doesn’t mean that the awareness that illuminates your mind is not the same as that which illumines all minds. 

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

I didn't ask why something is known or unknown.  I gave examples of phenomena which pre-date awareness.

I would say that nothing “predates” awareness, but rather the mind in which knowledge of said phenomenon/object arises (or is obscured). Awareness is beyond both space and time, as these concepts arise with the mind. You can validate this yourself through this simple thought exercise. 
 

“Without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

Edited November 23, 2023 by dwai

[Daniel]

43 minutes ago, dwai said:

Nonduality realization is always in an individual’s mind. 
 Now we have to be careful about the term “awareness” because that which is referred to in nonduality teachings is not “to be aware of any particular thing” but rather “pure object-less awareness” (think of it  like light that illuminates for example’s sake). 

So I don’t disagree that your mind is yours and distinct from mine. That doesn’t mean that the awareness that illuminates your mind is not the same as that which illumines all minds. 

 

"the awareness that illuminates my mind is the same as that which illumines all minds" <----- agreed.

 

In a similar way, the circulation through my heart is the same as the circulation through all hearts?

[dwai]

18 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

"the awareness that illuminates my mind is the same as that which illumines all minds" <----- agreed.

 

In a similar way, the circulation through my heart is the same as the circulation through all hearts?

Not like that. I mean awareness is not an emergent property of our brains, it is rather primordial and suffuses all phenomena through and through. A good approximation in the phenomenal world would be like space. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by dwai

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not like that. I mean awareness is not an emergent property of our brains, it is rather primordial and suffuses all phenomena through and through. A good approximation in the phenomenal world would be like space. 

 

Not an emergent property, ok.  Would you consider it noun or verb? Neither, both?  Something else?

 

I'm struggling with the comparisson with space. 

 

 

[dwai]

25 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Not an emergent property, ok.  Would you consider it noun or verb? Neither, both?  Something else?

 

I'm struggling with the comparisson with space. 

 

 

It is not a thing, so can’t be something else, neither a noun, nor a verb. 
 

As another thought exercise, imagine you have an empty cup on a table top. When you pick up the cup and move it, what happens to the space that was in that cup? Does it move with the cup? 
 

Maybe this will help -

 

Quote

I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (citta).
I am not the five senses.
I am beyond that.
I am not the seven elements or the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

Neither can I be termed as energy (prāṇa),
nor five types of breath (vāyus - Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna),
nor the seven material essences,
nor the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).
Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,
nor greed,
nor delusion,
nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.
I have no duty (dharma),
nor any purpose (artha),
nor any desire (kāma),
nor even liberation (mokṣa).
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I have neither merit (virtue),
nor demerit (vice).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.
I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yajñas).
I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death.
I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence,
nor have I discrimination on the basis of caste or creed.
I have no father or mother,
nor did I have a birth.
I am not the relative,
nor the friend,
nor the guru,
nor the disciple. 
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I am all pervasive.
I am without any attributes, and without any form.
I have neither attachment to the world,
nor to liberation (mukti).
I have no wishes for anything
because I am everything,
everywhere,
every time,
always in equilibrium.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by dwai

[Mark Foote]

On 11/22/2023 at 4:34 PM, dwai said:

Nonduality realization is always in an individual’s mind. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Now we have to be careful about the term “awareness” because that which is referred to in nonduality teachings is not “to be aware of any particular thing” but rather “pure object-less awareness” (think of it  like light that illuminates for example’s sake). 
 

 

 

 

Meditation on no object should not be confused with blank-mindedness in which you are completely dull as if in a stupor or a faint. It is extremely alert, mindful and clear, but as in the Clear Light death meditations, without any object or thoughts.

(“The Mahamudra:  Eliminating the Darkness of Ignorance”, Wang Chug Dor-je, Alexander Berzin, Beru Khyentze Rinpoche; p. 51-52; commentary by Beru Khyentze Rinpoche on a 16th century C.E. text by the head of the largest sub-school of the four major Tibetan schools of Buddhism.)

 

 

Dogen followed in the Chinese tradition when he wrote:

 

Therefore, …take the backward step of turning the light and shining it back.
 

(Eihei Dogen, “Fukan zazengi” Tenpuku version, tr Carl Bielefeldt, “Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation”, p 176)

 

 

Turn the light to shine on awareness itself, even as awareness shifts and moves.  

As to the similarity to space:

 

You must strive with all your might to bite through here and cut off conditioned habits of mind. Be like a person who has died the great death: after your breath is cut off, then you come back to life. Only then do you realize that it is as open as empty space. Only then do you reach the point where your feet are walking on the ground of reality.
 

(Zen Letters, translated by J.C. and Thomas Cleary, pg 84)

 

 

"open as empty space"--the natural instinct toward a freedom of awareness, an experience that perhaps underlies the comprehension in an individual's mind.

 

[old3bob]

an individual mind is only apparent,

  Om Tat Sat....

Edited November 25, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:08 PM, dwai said:

As another thought exercise, imagine you have an empty cup on a table top. When you pick up the cup and move it, what happens to the space that was in that cup? Does it move with the cup? 

 

If it is literally empty, the void does not move.  Emptiness is displaced and replaced as the cup moves.  How does this relate to comparing awareness to space?

 

On 11/22/2023 at 5:38 PM, dwai said:

it is rather primordial and suffuses all phenomena through and through

 

suffuses all phenomena through and through.... OK, ok.  I think I have a good english word in mind for this.  Better than "awareness", better than "God".  If satisfies all conditions excluding "neither verb nor noun."  This word is a noun.

 

On 11/22/2023 at 6:08 PM, dwai said:

I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (citta).
I am not the five senses.
I am beyond that.

 

You suffuse the mind but are not the mind?

You suffuse the intellect, the ego, reflections of inner self, but are none of these?

You suffuse the five senses, but you are not the five senses?

 

If you suffuse them through and through, then, "beyond" is not a good word choice.  

 

You are not limited by any of them?  If so, this is why "awareness" is not a good word choice for "you".  Awareness is limited.  It cannot probe below the surface of anything other than itself.

 

On 11/22/2023 at 6:08 PM, dwai said:

Neither can I be termed as energy (prāṇa),
nor five types of breath (vāyus - Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna),
nor the seven material essences,
nor the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).
Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion.

 

You are none of them, you suffuse them through and through?

 

Quote

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

 

I like the word choice "pure-consciousness".  It's much better than "awareness".  Although it is important to note that "pure-conciousness" is a noun. 

 

I would never deny your eternity.  Although there is a problem including known if the unknown is excluded.  There is a great deal that you and I do not know.    

 

Quote

I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,

 

1)  Lacking all like and all dislike is a absolute ambivalence.  Absolute ambivalence is ambivalent about ambivalence which means that it might include liking and/or disliking.

 

2)  There are at least one which you dislike:  self-deception.  There is at least one which you like:  self-purity.

 

Quote

nor greed,

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

nor delusion,

 

Agreed if and only if you dislike self-deception.  

 

Quote

nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

I have no duty (dharma),

 

You have a duty to yourself?

 

Quote

nor any purpose (artha),

 

I strongly disagree.  Your purpose is to be yourself?

 

Quote

nor any desire (kāma),

 

If this were true, you would never reveal yourself.

 

Quote

nor even liberation (mokṣa).

 

You will never be free of yourself.

 

Quote

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

 

You are indeed, eternal knowing, unknowing and bliss.

 

Quote

I have neither merit (virtue),
nor demerit (vice).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.

 

You do not possess any of these, but you suffuse them all through and through?

 

Quote

I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yajñas).

 

Agreed.  You do not need anything other than yourself.

 

Quote

I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced.

 

You are none of them, but without you they are meaningless.  This is your purpose, where you are being yourself.  This is your home.

 

Quote

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

 

You are indeed pure-consciousness known in english as "truth".

 

I am true and so are you. 

 

I am a body and a soul.  This is true.  The body is born, grows old, gets sick, and dies.  This is true.  The soul is a collection of talents, flaws, affinties, aversions, and lineage or lack of lineage.  This is true.

 

Lacking awareness is true when it is true.

Denying significance is true when it is true.

False statements which are known to be false are true.

Delusion which is revealed is true.

Ignorance which is known as ignorance is true.

 

Self-deception is not true.

Impure truth is not true.

 

Truth does not like self-deception.

Truth likes purity in itself.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Awareness is limited.  It cannot probe below the surface of anything other than itself.

 

 

I would contend that it is possible to act on the basis of things that are beyond the boundaries of the senses.   

That doesn't mean that things beyond the boundaries of the senses are comprehended, understood, or realized.  More like:

 

When the location of awareness is free to shift and move, the centrifugal force around any axis in the place of awareness can find a counterforce along the same axis.
 

... If the mind of friendliness, of compassion, of sympathetic joy, or of equanimity is extended throughout the four quarters of the world, above and below, then the centrifugal force at the location of awareness and the counterforce can involve things that lie beyond the boundaries of the senses, and change in the balance of force and counterforce can initiate change in the carriage of the body without conscious volition.

(Four Points of Ki-Aikido)

 

 

Dogen wrote "Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent" (“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Kazuaki Tanahashi).  The example he gave was:

 

Mayu, Zen master Baoche, was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, “Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?”
 

“Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent,” Mayu replied, “you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere.”
 

“What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?” asked the monk again. Mayu just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply.

 

(ibid)

 

I would say that the wind that reaches everywhere actualizes the inconceivable immediately, without any practice occurring, in Mayu’s fanning.  That's the feeling, when the location of awareness shifts and moves freely based on necessity experienced in the movement of breath, and change in the balance of force and counterforce at the place of awareness initiates change in the carriage of the body without conscious volition.

Very useful, I imagine, in the kind of blindfold exercise they do in Aikido, although my experience was more like avoiding flying bodies on the dance floor at Mabuhay Gardens. You can kind of  get an idea of the chaos on the dance floor at Mabuhay Gardens, here--the guy in the blue shirt at :45 gets bent over because someone was shoved into him from behind.  You can imagine was it was like in the center of the dance floor:

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Mark Foote