What's with this Relative and Absolute Reality dichotomy? It is all very confusing...

[dwai]

The dharma traditions use a 2-truth Reality to reconcile True Nature, which is changeless (or empty depending on the specific path within the dharma family), and the manifest world of phenomena hinged on change.

 

The model states as follows -

 

1. There is an absolute reality which is beyond all categories and labels, names and forms, and is ever free, and is beyond space and time (and therefore change). This is our True Nature - pure consciousness. It is existence itself, it is being itself, it is peace/bliss itself.
2. There is a phenomenal world, in which beings (such as you and me) come into existence, live out their lives, and die. This is the world of change - there is nothing permanent about this world except change itself.  This is called the Relative Reality. 

 

How then can one reconcile the two? If one is true, the other must be false, right? Can there actually be two truths?

 

The confusion is because we operate in this phenomenal world, and that which is called Absolute Reality isn't apparent at all. So, when we experience all phenomena (basically anything that is subject to change, has a beginning and end is called a phenomenon) - we can't really find anything changeless there.

 

The confusion occurs as a consequence of looking for a "thing". Absolute Reality is not a thing. 

How then can one recognize/realize this Absolute Reality?

 

(more later) 

[forestofclarity]

I was listening to Nonduality by David Loy and this interesting passage from the Zhuangzi popped out:

 

Quote

 

The knowledge of the ancients was perfect. How perfect? At first, they did not know that there were things. This is the most perfect knowledge, nothing can be added. Next, they knew there were things, but did not yet make distinctions between them. Next, they made distinctions between them, but did not yet pass judgments on them. When judgments were passed, the Dao was destroyed."

 - Chuang Tzu, trans. Fung Yu-Lan

 

 

Edited April 16 by forestofemptiness

[Nungali]

On 11/04/2024 at 10:59 PM, dwai said:

The dharma traditions use a 2-truth Reality to reconcile True Nature, which is changeless (or empty depending on the specific path within the dharma family), and the manifest world of phenomena hinged on change.

 

The model states as follows -

 

1. There is an absolute reality which is beyond all categories and labels, names and forms, and is ever free, and is beyond space and time (and therefore change). This is our True Nature - pure consciousness. It is existence itself, it is being itself, it is peace/bliss itself.
2. There is a phenomenal world, in which beings (such as you and me) come into existence, live out their lives, and die. This is the world of change - there is nothing permanent about this world except change itself.  This is called the Relative Reality. 

 

How then can one reconcile the two? If one is true, the other must be false, right? Can there actually be two truths?

 

The confusion is because we operate in this phenomenal world, and that which is called Absolute Reality isn't apparent at all. So, when we experience all phenomena (basically anything that is subject to change, has a beginning and end is called a phenomenon) - we can't really find anything changeless there.

 

The confusion occurs as a consequence of looking for a "thing". Absolute Reality is not a thing. 

How then can one recognize/realize this Absolute Reality?

 

(more later) 

 

 

Why is it confusing ? I dont understand that at all .

 

" If one is true, the other must be false, right? "  No, wrong . Why are you setting up this either /  or  thing ?

 

I do not understand the statement 'if one is true the other must be false '   ...  why  ?  

 

You actually stated  and set up at the beginning  " which is beyond all  "  .   You didnt state and  set up   ' this is the reality '  about either realities  .    You first made a distinction between them , then claimed confusion by saying how can they have a distinction .

 

Now,     THAT   ^     is confusing !

 

UNLESS  there is some doctrine I dont know of that states ;  absolute or relative ,  there  must be one or the other  .

 

"

'

Edited April 16 by Nungali

[idiot_stimpy]

I think the two truths were needed for more clear discussion about the relative and absolute. Both show different viewpoints from the same place. Just an easier way to discuss things.

[dwai]

Why is the Two Reality model so difficult to reconcile?

 

The problem stems from the following perspective -

 

As beings operating inside one of the realities (relative reality level), we are used to using the subject-object framework to operate. What is the subject-object framework? You, the subject, experience phenomena (objects) - things are created, they are destroyed, living beings are born, and then they die; there might be attributes of nature that exist at a larger timescale than our limited presence in the phenomenal world, but we see those too change and transform (dramatically sometimes) - rivers that have flowed for thousands of years might run dry, mountains might collapse due to tectonic movements in the earth's crust, and so on. Given this, you (and by *you* I mean all of us) operate continuously as a subject relative to objects you experience. In such a scenario, the possibility of a Reality outside the scope of this phenomenal world seems unfathomable. Indeed, when we are using language to communicate this information, it adds to the confusion even more. We are taking phenomenal objects (words, thoughts, language itself) to try and articulate something that lies outside the remit of phenomena.

 

The "other" reality, one that is often called the Absolute Reality, is the one that stands without a second, or in other words, is not affected by the appearance or disappearance of objects. What is such a reality? Referring to it as a "thing" is a language limitation - because it is not a *thing*. Why is it not a thing? Because it can never become an object. It is pure objectless consciousness - the ground of all things. How is it the ground of all things? Because all things (objects) appear and disappear in it. 

 

The problem is a category mistake. You seek to understand it as an object—expect to see/study its properties when it doesn't have any. But it is the very thing that enables you to seek, observe, and know. 

 

[Taoist Texts]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:59 PM, dwai said:

If one is true, the other must be false, right? Can there actually be two truths?

 Nagarjuna, an ancient Indian philosopher, and a teacher of Mahayana Buddhism: "Nothing of Samsara is different from Nirvana, nothing of Nirvana is different from Samsara. That which is the limit of Nirvana is also the limit of Samsara, there is not the slightest difference between the two."^[38]

 

13 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

- Chuang Tzu, trans. Fung Yu-Lan

this is a pretty horrible transl. this one is correct. Also this paragraph is not about 2 objective, external, true/false realities. It is about the men losing dao in their minds.

[forestofclarity]

It is interesting that Advaitins have to contend with the idea that things are impermanent and constantly changing, whereas Buddhists have to contend with the idea that things are enduring and lasting! I suppose it depends on how one tunes the mind. 

 

The Advaitin approach is a bit self-harmonizing. Arguably, change only makes sense in the context of a changeless "background." And the changeless, objectless background is revealed by changing objects. In this sense, Maya is not only veiling, but revealing. Swami S compares it to space. There is light in space, but the light is only revealed when there an object for it to reflect off of. In fact, one cannot even discuss the relative without invoking the absolute: is, being, existence.  

 

I do think it is extremely hard to adjust from an object-oriented mind set to a non-object oriented mind set. Again, the
"mind" is an object producing object. It makes sense that it would produce or focus on objects in, especially objects that are very subtle ---the sense of presence, the feeling of I AM, the sense of an observer, etc. No doubt given the mind's creativity, all types of false or facsimile experiences can be created to masquerade as the truth. 

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

 Nagarjuna, an ancient Indian philosopher, and a teacher of Mahayana Buddhism: "Nothing of Samsara is different from Nirvana, nothing of Nirvana is different from Samsara. That which is the limit of Nirvana is also the limit of Samsara, there is not the slightest difference between the two."^[38]

 

Except that, seen from enlightened mind, "all dharmas are marked by emptiness", a perspective unavailable to unenlightened mind. The one pervasive, permanent and unchanging quality of all things is this "emptiness" and it is impossible not to see in all relative appearances once seen. 

[idiot_stimpy]

8 hours ago, dwai said:

The "other" reality, one that is often called the Absolute Reality, is the one that stands without a second, or in other words, is not affected by the appearance or disappearance of objects. What is such a reality? Referring to it as a "thing" is a language limitation - because it is not a *thing*. Why is it not a thing? Because it can never become an object. It is pure objectless consciousness - the ground of all things. How is it the ground of all things? Because all things (objects) appear and disappear in it. 

 

The problem is a category mistake. You seek to understand it as an object—expect to see/study its properties when it doesn't have any. But it is the very thing that enables you to seek, observe, and know. 

 

 

Those who have not seen and experienced from the absolute viewpoint can only objectify it. But even those who have seen and experienced from the absolute viewpoint must objectify it to talk about it, as words are objects and as you describe "...it can never become an object."

 

 

Quote

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

 

Edited April 17 by idiot_stimpy

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

 

Those who have not seen and experienced from the absolute viewpoint can only objectify it. But even those who have seen and experienced from the absolute viewpoint must objectify it to talk about it, as words are objects and as you describe "...it can never become an object."

 

 

 

That’s the irony - everyone is always “experiencing” that absolute. The misunderstanding  about what *it* is, is what causes the aforementioned confusion. 
 

PS - I wrote “experiencing” in quotes because I there’s  not really experiencing “it” per se - all experience is because of it. So the old question of “how does one know one has eyes?” is applicable here. 

Edited April 17 by dwai

[idiot_stimpy]

Buddha Nature is always there, but in order to know it and experience it and see it is another thing. That's why pointing out instructions pointing with the words of form towards that which cannot be expressed in form is so helpful.

 

The difficulty is for those who see the pointing with words and in an intellectual sense, hold onto the words of the pointing and not the experience. Most including myself, are heavily conditioned hold onto the words that obscures the pure seeing. 

[Taoist Texts]

17 hours ago, dwai said:

Why is it not a thing? Because it can never become an object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

[Taoist Texts]

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

in general when the modern mystics try to share, they undermine it by not providing definitions and by not providing concrete examples. While the intent is commendable, the message is fuzzy. If you want us to understand what you write you should explain that in your mind a thing is not an object. because it is kinda clashes with a dictionary. Then, pls provide an example.

14 hours ago, stirling said:

Except that, seen from enlightened mind, "all dharmas are marked by emptiness", a perspective unavailable to unenlightened mind.

like here.  i am very interested in what @stirling says but i have to ask him for an example 'how the emptiness feels like, what do you see?' otherwise i dont know what he is trying to say.

[dwai]

16 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

in general when the modern mystics try to share, they undermine it by not providing definitions and by not providing concrete examples. While the intent is commendable, the message is fuzzy. If you want us to understand what you write you should explain that in your mind a thing is not an object. because it is kinda clashes with a dictionary. Then, pls provide an example.

Those who are ready to understand will do so  

16 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

like here.  i am very interested in what @stirling says but i have to ask him for an example 'how the emptiness feels like, what do you see?' otherwise i dont know what he is trying to say.

It feels like no thing  

[S:C]

無?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero." That's silly! Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu state.^[22]

[dwai]

What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

[silent thunder]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

Awareness

[thelerner]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

Simpsons did it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YSfEKMeC8

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, dwai said:

What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

 

Ummmm .....   that sound you hear when you ask a question and get a lame  overused philosophical obscure answer   ? 

[Cobie]

‘clapping’ means ‘ two hands coming together’. So this:

6 hours ago, dwai said:

What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

is a 

10 hours ago, dwai said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

10 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

… If you want us to understand what you write you should explain that in your mind a thing is not an object. because it is kinda clashes with a dictionary. …

Exactly. 
 

 

[dwai]

On 4/16/2024 at 3:30 PM, forestofemptiness said:

 

It is interesting that Advaitins have to contend with the idea that things are impermanent and constantly changing, whereas Buddhists have to contend with the idea that things are enduring and lasting! I suppose it depends on how one tunes the mind.

 

So interesting. Yet it is the Buddhists who say “kshanikam kshanikam sarvam kshanikam” and the advaitins who say, “sarvam khalu idam brahma” 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

in general when the modern mystics try to share, they undermine it by not providing definitions and by not providing concrete examples. While the intent is commendable, the message is fuzzy. If you want us to understand what you write you should explain that in your mind a thing is not an object. because it is kinda clashes with a dictionary. Then, pls provide an example.

like here.  i am very interested in what @stirling says but i have to ask him for an example 'how the emptiness feels like, what do you see?' otherwise i dont know what he is trying to say.

 

Modern AND traditional mystics have a hard time explaining the "appearance" (or any other qualities, for that matter) of "emptiness" because it doesn't have any that can be truly be defined as "characteristics". You can try: it is still (while still in motion), color saturated, silent (while there is still sound), timeless, spaceless, without subject/object relationships or a "self" present that observes. These will sound like nonsense to most people. 

 

The only "concrete" example that can be had is your own experience. Very few if any are going to read about it and suddenly get it.

 

Demonstrating what emptiness is really requires and in-person meeting and "pointing out". Once seen, some supposedly will get it and become "awakened" immediately, but most will either sort of get what you are pointing at and be underwhelmed, or surprised or in disbelief at how simple it is. Unless seen at its full depth it doesn't truly impress without putting the time and work into learning to rest in it during meditation and being able to watch as it transforms experience. 

 

Quote

Four Faults of Natural Awareness

 

So close you can’t see it.
So deep you can’t fathom it.
So simple you can’t believe it.
So good you can’t accept it.

– Kalu Rinpoche

 

1. The nature of mind is just too close to be recognized. Just as we are unable to see our own face, mind finds it difficult to look into its own nature.
 
2. It is too profound for us to fathom. We have no idea how deep it could be; if we did, we would have already, to a certain extent, realized it. 

 

3. It is too easy for us to believe. In reality, all we need do is simply to rest in the naked, pure awareness of the nature of mind, which is always present. 

 

4. It is too wonderful for us to accommodate. The sheer immensity of it is too vast to fit into our narrow way of thinking. We just can't believe it. Nor can we possibly imagine that enlightenment is the real nature of our minds. 

 

[Taoist Texts]

7 hours ago, stirling said:

Modern AND traditional mystics have a hard time explaining the "appearance"

Of course. In my reality, the trad ones verbally explain the milestones very clearly (e.g buddhist jhanas). the modern ones who attain the milestones also do so (e.g one of my students). But thank you very much anyway.