Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

Thank you for a very excellent and clarifying post!

You are saying in your own way essentially what I have been saying all along.

But to add a short comment: people who are hypnotized by science (and I mean this in the sense of being a mental conditioning, even an indoctrination) forget that it was an intuitive sense, an awakening, that first caused them to seek further using the methodology that is now called science. Others who have had this primary experience choose the path that caused the awakening in the first place: that of the intuitive mind, which leads to a different kind of knowledge we call Enlightenment. When this is attained, the discursive mind stops. Then there is only a pure kind of seeing into the true nature of things. What science 'discovers' is only an addition in the form of factual knowledge to that of the enlightened mind. Here, the cart is placed properly behind the horse. But scientists make the mistake of putting what they discover about nature ahead of nature itself, thereby providing only a skeletal framework, and not the essence of Reality, since the tools of science, Logic, Reason, and Analysis, are methods of dissection and reduction, unable to detect what Reality is all about, and therefore dismissing anything it cannot find factual evidence for as being valid.

Somewhere along the line man wanted to know what was real and what was not, so man created the scientific method to help filter fact from fiction. It is not about going against or ahead of nature, it is about understanding nature.

 

[godnotgod]

There is something to be said about personal experience. I believe many people have genuine paranormal experiences for example, which is evidence enough for them perhaps, but that type of evidence is not evidence enough to proclaim to the world "Hey, this is a matter of fact!"

Facts are details about the phenomenal world as understood via perception; mystical experience is beyond the world of perception, and therefore, beyond facts. It is about what is before facts; before the phenomenal world even comes into play. And so, what is before facts can only be pointed to, and what is being pointed to can only be detected by seeing, and not thinking, as it is non-conceptual. This, we call Ultimate Reality. It, unlike the phenomenal world, does not come and go, and is therefore called The Changeless. It is Unborn.

Some see it; some don't. The mind must be made pure and clear; otherwise the discursive mind with all its activity gets in the way and does not allow seeing into the true nature of things. This kind of seeing is realization itself, and is immediate and spontaneous:

In the founding legend of Zen, Shakyamuni Buddha holds up a flower and declares, “I possess the treasury of the true dharma eye, the sublime mind of nirvana, whose true sign is signlessness.” The key word here is the last one: according to Zen, the mind of nirvana has no special sign.

If the Zen dharma is signless, why did the Buddha hold up a flower in particular? Must the mind of nirvana be symbolized by a flower alone? Well, no. Zen masters throughout history used a wide range of metaphors to convey signlessness: the moon, a flowing spring, and a mirror were among the most commonly used by the old masters, whose choice of words often echoed the austere beauty of the dharma halls themselves.


One good example of a master’s skilled use of metaphor to convey signlessness was in an ancient dharma hall talk by Fengxue, of the Linji (Rinzai) Zen lineage. Fengxue’s temple was poor, the conditions there cold and harsh. I imagine him speaking in his dharma hall on a frigid night to a few ragged monks under a dim light, a cold wind blowing past the open eaves. In the talk, Fengxue refers to a story where the Buddha is said to have described himself as an archer and craftsman of arrows:

“An ancient said,

‘I have an arrow that I have sharpened for eons. When I shoot, it flies through the ten directions. No one can see where it falls.’

But as for me [Fengxue], I also have an arrow, but it isn’t sharp. When I shoot this arrow, it doesn’t fly through the ten directions. Even so, no one can see it.”

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/consider-source-why-didnt-chinese-zen-dharma-halls-have-buddhist-icons

 

[Runewolf1973]

How do you define "mystical experience?" Mystical is rather vague with no concrete definition.

You've also stated that you believe that the unexplained, which can also be mystical... will "eventually" be able to be explained by logic and reason.

It will either be proven or disproven by science.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Facts are details about the phenomenal world as understood via perception; mystical experience is beyond the world of perception, and therefore, beyond facts. It is about what is before facts; before the phenomenal world even comes into play. And so, what is before facts can only be pointed to, and what is being pointed to can only be detected by seeing, and not thinking, as it is non-conceptual. This, we call Ultimate Reality. It, unlike the phenomenal world, does not come and go, and is therefore called The Changeless. It is Unborn.

Some see it; some don't. The mind must be made pure and clear; otherwise the discursive mind with all its activity gets in the way and does not allow seeing into the true nature of things. This kind of seeing is realization itself, and is immediate and spontaneous:

In the founding legend of Zen, Shakyamuni Buddha holds up a flower and declares, “I possess the treasury of the true dharma eye, the sublime mind of nirvana, whose true sign is signlessness.” The key word here is the last one: according to Zen, the mind of nirvana has no special sign.

If the Zen dharma is signless, why did the Buddha hold up a flower in particular? Must the mind of nirvana be symbolized by a flower alone? Well, no. Zen masters throughout history used a wide range of metaphors to convey signlessness: the moon, a flowing spring, and a mirror were among the most commonly used by the old masters, whose choice of words often echoed the austere beauty of the dharma halls themselves.


One good example of a master’s skilled use of metaphor to convey signlessness was in an ancient dharma hall talk by Fengxue, of the Linji (Rinzai) Zen lineage. Fengxue’s temple was poor, the conditions there cold and harsh. I imagine him speaking in his dharma hall on a frigid night to a few ragged monks under a dim light, a cold wind blowing past the open eaves. In the talk, Fengxue refers to a story where the Buddha is said to have described himself as an archer and craftsman of arrows:

“An ancient said,

‘I have an arrow that I have sharpened for eons. When I shoot, it flies through the ten directions. No one can see where it falls.’

But as for me [Fengxue], I also have an arrow, but it isn’t sharp. When I shoot this arrow, it doesn’t fly through the ten directions. Even so, no one can see it.”

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/consider-source-why-didnt-chinese-zen-dharma-halls-have-buddhist-icons

Until I have this experience for myself, there is no reason why I must accept it as absolute truth.

 

[godnotgod]

Somewhere along the line man wanted to know what was real and what was not, so man created the scientific method to help filter fact from fiction. It is not about going against or ahead of nature, it is about understanding nature.

But that is precisely where you (and they) are mistaken. Filtering fact from fiction, is not the same as following the path of intuitive knowledge vs the path of factual knowledge. You are assuming the intuitive path to be that of fiction. Fiction surely exists, and fact must be separated from what is not factual. But the world of facts is part and parcel of the phenomenal world which is the world of the ordinary mind. The enlightened mind is focused on that which is behind the phenomenal world, and which is responsible for its manifestation. By seeing into Ultimate Reality, we can know the true nature of the phenomenal world.

Science cannot understand nature; it can only provide factual knowledge about nature, and make predictions based on repeatability and constancy. It's very method (ie dissection, reduction) prevent true understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

Where is the contradiction? The Animating Factor is not part of something, it is everything including that complex form of interaction we call consciousness.


"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all came forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas.

To me that epitomizes what I call the Animating Factor. It is not a duality. It is totality.

You see, when the One is seen, that is enough. The very moment one takes the next step, and begins to conceptualize, to create ideas about the One, such as 'the Animating Factor', one has lost sight of the One, and has plunged oneself into duality. Do you see this?

 

[godnotgod]

Until I have this experience for myself, there is no reason why I must accept it as absolute truth.

But you cannot have this experience as long as you cling to ideas about what the experience is or is not. We call this clinging 'baggage'.

re: 'absolute truth', the third zen patriarch said:

'Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinion'

Here, in a nutshell, is the difference between the scientific method and the mystical experience. Factual knowledge seeks to add, day by day, to its storehouse of knowledge via the accumulation of data and facts; the mystic, OTOH, subtracts, day by day from his storehouse of knowledge until he reaches a state of knowing nothing. It is in this vast emptiness that enlightenment comes, as I like to say:

'a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night'

 

[Runewolf1973]

You see, when the One is seen, that is enough. The very moment one takes the next step, and begins to conceptualize, to create ideas about the One, such as 'the Animating Factor', one has lost sight of the One, and has plunged oneself into duality. Do you see this?

And I guess absolute joy, pure consciousness/being/bliss and changeless vs changing is not a conceptualization of that One either.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But you cannot have this experience as long as you cling to ideas about what the experience is or is not. We call this clinging 'baggage'.

Oh well... I don't feel any particular need or desire for that "experience" either. Should I be craving for this enlightenment?

 

[godnotgod]

Of course science is not above nature. I never said that it was. Science is about finding facts to achieve a better understanding of nature. Primitive animistic cultures understood nature so well because they lived so closely with nature. Science understands nature so well for the same reason...by how closely scientists work with and study nature. That is why I respect both primitive man and modern day scientists. They both share that same connection with nature.

I am sorry, but I take issue with all of the above.

To the primitive, nature was a mystery held in awe and respected to the point of being religious about it. But they were close to it, without employing a clinical analysis of it. IOW, nature was alive and powerful. The scientist, OTOH, can only see it in terms of observer and observed. It is not seen as alive and conscious, but only as object to be manipulated and ultimately controlled, via technology. In doing so, man has separated himself from nature, seeing it as something to be conquered. Modern man cannot even understand himself, let alone nature. It is for this reason that modern man faces a spiritual crisis of huge proportions, and why, for example, the feminine-mystical based teachings, such as yoga, zen, wicca, gnosticism, kaballah, sufism, etc, have gained popularity all around the world in recent years. They provide the spiritual nourishment that man seeks, putting him back in touch with nature, rather than the sterile separation that modern science comes up with. Science can feed us tons of facts, but they only amount to empty calories when it comes to fulfilment.

 

[godnotgod]

And I guess absolute joy, pure consciousness/being/bliss and changeless vs changing is not a conceptualization of that One either.

They need to be understood as pointing fingers only. Any spiritual seeker must break the barrier of words and concepts before seeing can take place.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I am sorry, but I take issue with all of the above.

To the primitive, nature was a mystery held in awe and respected to the point of being religious about it. But they were close to it, without employing a clinical analysis of it. IOW, nature was alive and powerful. The scientist, OTOH, can only see it in terms of observer and observed. It is not seen as alive and conscious, but only as object to be manipulated and ultimately controlled, via technology. In doing so, man has separated himself from nature, seeing it as something to be conquered. Modern man cannot even understand himself, let alone nature. It is for this reason that modern man faces a spiritual crisis of huge proportions, and why, for example, the feminine-mystical based teachings, such as yoga, zen, wicca, gnosticism, kaballah, sufism, etc, have gained popularity all around the world in recent years. They provide the spiritual nourishment that man seeks, putting him back in touch with nature, rather than the sterile separation that modern science comes up with. Science can feed us tons of facts, but they only amount to empty calories when it comes to fulfilment.

You take issue with everything that is not in alignment with your view of Pure Consciousness, so I will just ignore what you have to say. I don't feel like putting the effort into reading your long posts anymore.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh well... I don't feel any particular need or desire for that "experience" either. Should I be craving for this enlightenment?

No, of course not. You will only seek that when you begin to see its true value. Once seen, however, it will not leave you alone, as it will be the most compelling thing in your life, above all else. The paradox, however, is that this jewel we call Enlightenment, is also understood as Nothing Special. And so it is said:

'Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special'

or, to put it another way:

'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor'

'craving' for Enlightenment is an obstacle to Enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

You take issue with everything that is not in alignment with your view of Pure Consciousness, so I will just ignore what you have to say. I don't feel like putting the effort into reading your long posts anymore.

I take issue with what does not reflect the true nature of Reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

They need to be understood as pointing fingers only. Any spiritual seeker must break the barrier of words and concepts before seeing can take place.

I am not seeking anything, nor do I have desire to be any further "enlightened".

 

[Runewolf1973]

I take issue with what does not reflect the true nature of Reality.

With what you believe is the true nature of reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, of course not. You will only seek that when you begin to see its true value. Once seen, however, it will not leave you alone, as it will be the most compelling thing in your life, above all else. The paradox, however, is that this jewel we call Enlightenment, is also understood as Nothing Special. And so it is said:

'Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special'

or, to put it another way:

'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor'

'craving' for Enlightenment is an obstacle to Enlightenment.

That it has any value or worthiness whatsoever is another conceptualization. That paradox seems like a duality to me...it is, but it is not.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not seeking anything, nor do I have desire to be any further "enlightened".

Of course not. You are currently and temporarily satisfied with your nice neat little security blanket called the 'Theory of Interaction' and the 'Animating Factor'. Once these begin to fall apart at the seams, you will again seek. It is part of the cosmic game of Hide and Seek, which you fail to understand that you are playing. Only when you completely exhaust yourself of all your theories and concepts will you begin to see things another way. But you must realize all the while, that what you are seeking is exactly what is causing you to seek.

 

[godnotgod]

That it has any value or worthiness whatsoever is another conceptualization. That paradox seems like a duality to me...it is, but it is not.

To the contrary, it is negation of duality.

The value it demonstrates is not in conceptualization, but in seeing it for what it is. The former is about thinking; the latter about intuitive insight.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course not. You are currently and temporarily satisfied with your nice neat little security blanket called the 'Theory of Interaction' and the 'Animating Factor'. Once these begin to fall apart at the seams, you will again seek. It is part of the cosmic game of Hide and Seek, which you fail to understand that you are playing. Only when you completely exhaust yourself of all your theories and concepts will you begin to see things another way. But you must realize all the while, that what you are seeking is exactly what is causing you to seek.

If it falls apart, so be it.