Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Friday June 29. 2001

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    **************** Comparison means division. To compare comparing with not comparing is still comparing, still division. So comparing only exists relative to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ****************
       
       
      Comparison means division.
      To compare comparing with not comparing is still comparing, still division.
      So comparing only exists relative to not comparing and visa versa.
      The good exists in relation to the bad
      The energy of opposition keeps 'me' going
      The Enlightened and Unenlightened deserve each other!

      Gary

       
      Hi Gary --

      Division of what?

      There is comparing.
      When no comparison
         is going on, there is not-comparing.
      If you compare comparison
         and non-comparison, then you
         have comparing, and you don't
         know first-hand non-comparison,
         just the word.
      The activity going on is still "comparing" ...

      Bottom-line:  "non-comparison" in this
         context is, more precisely:
         "neither comparing nor not-comparing" ...

      No-comparison is "what is".
      The name "non-comparing" occurs
         in relation to "comparing", but
         the actuality in which no comparison
         can occur, doesn't depend on
         there being something called
         "comparing".
      It has no name, but is discussed
         simply to provoke questioning
         of the assumptions involved
         in the activity known as "comparing" ...
         which includes contrasting comparing
         with non-comparing.

      Dan


       
      Judi:  ***** Wrong! It's "Know Thyself" NOT "Know Thy Other Guy"!

      Dan: %%%%%%%
                Right! Wrong!  It's "No Thyself and no Other Guy"!

      &&&&&&&&&
                Wrong! Right!  It's "Know Thyself *IS* No Thyself --
                                     What Other Guy?"

      @@@@@@
                 Who's the weakest link?

       
      Hello Joyce,

      I read your summary, and see the answers therein! 

      The sutra is saying in a very elegant way that the question of
      enlightenment is for beings who believe in existence and non-existence.
      Beings are taken as those who believe in existence and non-existence, and
      who see things as arising from a place, and residing in a place.  What the
      Tathagata show as enlightenment is "pure (in essence) and permanently free
      from ignorance."  The Tathagata thus raises the beings' standards on what
      enlightenment is.  It's not located in time and space, but its purity is
      everywhere.  If this purity, as empty space, is seen by beings to issue
      from a person or place, or to be located at all, then, enter the illusory
      flower.  Hence the aptness of the phrase, "That which is aware of this
      empty space is like the appearance of the illusory flower".  For who could
      seem to see the empty space other than a being, which is actually a
      no-space, no-place like the sky-flower?

      To the Sutra excerpt and questions:

      Excerpt
      =======
      >"The awareness of their (birth,
      death, body, mind) nonexistence is like
      >empty space.  That which is
      aware of the empty space is like the appearance
      >of the illusory
      flower.  However, one cannot say that the nature of this
      >awareness
      is  nonexistent. Eleminating both existence and nonexistence is in
      >accordance with pure enlightenment."

      The awareness is at the same level of existence/nonexistence as the beings.
       Neither absolutely existence, nor absolutely lacking existence.  Existence
      being there, the elimination of existence is right there here too. 

      Question
      ========
      >Can any one comment about what their
      understanding is on, "That which is
      >aware of this empty space is like the
      appearance of the illusory flower".

      Awareness *of* something, especially the empty space which is wherevery you
      look, happens in the illusory pinpoint space, like the flower.  The
      illusory pinpoint of space is the being who seems to see.


      Question
      ========
      >And; "Eliminating both
      existence and nonexistence is in accordance with pure
      >enlightenment."

      Pure enlightenment is no trivial thing, but about existence itself.  It is
      not a new or better kind of existence, but about how neither existence nor
      non-existence are there to be found.  The "seeing" of this is not really
      seeing, and this is why it is in accordance with pure enlightenment. 

      Question
      ========
      >Also: "This non existence of birth and death
      and body and mind is not so
      >much a consequence of contrived effort. 
      It is so by it's intrinsic nature."

      Birth and death and body and mind don't inherently exist, nor do they
      totally lack existence.  No inherent characteristics apply to them at all,
      nor are they inherent.  But this "fact" doesn't depend upon being seen -
      it's already so.

      Question
      ========
      >So - how do sentient beings discover or
      recognize this 'intrinsic nature'?
      >Since it is not so much a "consequence
      of contrived effort".

      They practice the Dharma till the question dissolves!   For if they were to
      arrive at a place from which they recognize the intrisic nature, the empty
      space, then there would still be the being, the place, and the point seen
      from.  They would have "droped" back into existence again.  That is one of
      the petals on the illusory flower spoken of above....

      Amituofo!

      --Greg


      >Can any one comment about what their understanding is on, "That which
      is
      >aware of this empty space is like the appearance of the illusory
      flower".
      Dan:
      This is to go beyond "awareness", beyond any qualities associated
         with being aware, including the idea/feeling/perception that
         there is something in which images
         appear and are recognized, which has the quality of knowing
         things and recognizing them ...

      All attributes of *this*, including awareness, are like the
         appearance of the illusory flower.
      However, *this* is not nonexistent.  Attributes,
         qualities, experiences, and images associated with it
         and to it are unreal (for there is nothing that
         can "cling" to *it*),
         however this "non-clinging" (which isn't a quality that
         *it* "has") doesn't make *it* nonexistent.

      Existence and nonexistence are primary attributes
         or categories that allow perception to produce forms,
         to function as perception.
      Similarly primary categories are time and space.

      As no associations, assumptions, or categories "cling" ...
         *It* can't be said to exist or not exist, to be inside or outside
         of time or space, to be perceived or perceiving ...

      Knowing this is to know "all this" as my own awareness,
         yet having no qualities, not even of awareness --
         and to know that none of "all this" occurs in time or space,
         or beyond time and space ...

      This is occurring without taking place; all this transience involves
         nothing changing, everything moves without
         anything travelling, all these perceptions are not being perceived ...>And; "Eliminating both existence and nonexistence is in accordance with pure
      >enlightenment."

      see above.

      >Also: "This non
      existence of birth and death and body and mind is not so
      >much a
      consequence of contrived effort.  It is so by it's intrinsic nature."

      It's not even intrinsic nature.
      That's just said for convenience, as a pointer.
      There are no attributes or qualities,
         not even an intrinsic nature.
      So, there's really no pointing, just the
         illusion of pointing.


      >So -
      how do sentient beings discover or recognize this 'intrinsic nature'?
      >Since it is not so much a "consequence of contrived
      effort".

      The same place from which the illusion arises, is
         the place from which the insight arises.
      The illusion doesn't really hide the insight.
      The illusion only seems to hide the insight,
          in an illusory sort of way.
      Seeing this, it doesn't matter whether illusion arises,
          or insight arises.
      They are not really two, and they are not really
          happening anyplace.

      An illusory being can't know itself to be an illusion.
      *It* can't know itself to be other than *it* ...

      Thus, there is no problem,
         and nothing to know,
         and nothing about which
         something could be known.

      Love,
      Dan

      NDS

      Joyce, you asked:

      (It makes more sense to read this entry from the end to the
      beginning; the end informs the beginning. This is a function of the
      order of the questions.)


      >Can any one comment
      about what their understanding is on, "That which is
      >aware of this empty
      space is like the appearance of the illusory flower".

      The nature of the 'illusory flower' is itself, emptiness; thus it is
      known to awareness, which is emptiness.

      >And; "Eliminating both existence and nonexistence is in
      accordance with pure
      >enlightenment."

      The 'entire' (emptiness) is the observer, which sees both existence
      and nonexistence. Existence and nonexistence are one binary pair of
      many, so observed, yet do not form the antipodes of Being. Indeed,
      emptiness has no antipodes. Conclusion... ?

      >Also: "This non existence of birth and death and body and mind is
      not so
      >much a consequence of contrived effort.  It is so by it's
      intrinsic nature."

      It is not accomplished, it is what happens. And it happens because it is real.

      To recognize the 'intrinsic nature' is to realize 'only what is
      real'. Only this 'has' intrinsic nature. Awareness has only itself as
      comparison to any other thing, and other than awareness, no thing has
      independent existence.

      >So - how do sentient beings
      discover or recognize this 'intrinsic nature'?
      >Since it is not so much a
      "consequence of contrived effort".

      The sentient Being is itself, 'intrinsic nature'. Self-recognition is
      full function of awareness; in other words, awareness recognizes
      itself, and realizes the nature of awareness.


      Addendum:

      Unlimited (infinite) awareness is unbounded space (without
      antipodes). Space/emptiness/awareness are synonymous.

      Without boundaries, the Universe is an open system, and thus open to
      any and all reactions. Another way of saying this is that the
      Universe (space itself) is the realm of unlimited possibility.

      Consider the nature of awareness, as the emptiness of space in which
      all events occur. Infinite possibility, as reality, manifests as
      imagination. The flux of imagination, is 'the dance of Maya', the
      attention-grabbing and identification-encouraging movement in space.
      This movement is itself, powerful stimulation, and the human reacts
      to it.

      All reactions modify this movement; thus the illusion of 'doing' and
      its derivative, accomplishment.

      One may simply quit the dance, and the dancer (movement) goes on.
      Participation is optional.

      Overall, awareness is the arena in which all occurs; awareness is primary.


      Excellent questions, Joyce.


      ==Gene Poole==


      ED
       
      Dinu Roman:

      The first sign noticed by two Tantric partners after some time of successful Tantric practice, is an incredible development of the sensorial acuity, an exceptional unfoldment of the senses' perceptive power. The reality is intensified and simultaneously perceived as intricately complex: its appearance is now of a higher order than that perceived before. The outer objects lose their solidity and appear as fluid and continuously moving in a harmonious rhythm. Every tiny detail of the surrounding world reveals itself as a complex Universe in miniature. The significance of every detail of the world changes compared to what was grasped before. Profound qualitative changes of the coordinates of the manifested world set up gradually: the time is accelerated, the space expands, the causality becomes fluent. A new aesthetic awareness awakens — everything is beautiful! The beauty of the ubiquitous spiritual substratum of everything that exists is now perceived even in the so called "ugly" things or phenomena.



      http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010629/sc/life_consciousness_dc_1.html


      Friday June 29 10:07 AM ET
      Scientist Says Mind Continues After Brain Dies
      By Sarah Tippit


      LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A British scientist studying heart attack patients
      says he is finding evidence that suggests that consciousness may continue
      after the brain has stopped functioning and a patient is clinically dead.







       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.