Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[YmirGF]

I don't see any contradiction whatsoever in what he is saying, but I will leave the rest of the commentary to him.

In all fairness to the new fellow, I'm willing to cut him some slack for especially sloppy wording.

 

[godnotgod]

[QUOTE="YmirGF, post: 4528964, member: 4540....the whole karmic wheel thingy is a crock...[/QUOTE]

Well, we do know one thing for certain, irregardless of reincarnation: that certain negatively motivated actions on this planet clearly have negative consequences. That is karma. It is a fact.

 

[godnotgod]

In all fairness to the new fellow, I'm willing to cut him some slack for especially sloppy wording.

No, you're just wrong. He means what he says.

 

[Papoon]

Without poking you in the eye with a sharp stick....
If you don't experience anything how can you say you are being experienced? Which is it?

You would benefit from reading poetry. Your logic is brittle and harsh. Poetry is more satisfying to the soul than floccinaucinihilipilification.

 

[YmirGF]

You would benefit from reading poetry. Your logic is brittle and harsh. Poetry is more satisfying to the soul than floccinaucinihilipilification.

I hadn't realized you were waxing poetic. I didn't say what you wrote was unimportant. I was pointing out a seeming contradiction.

 

[YmirGF]

No, you're just wrong. He means what he says.

Thank goodness you are here to correct me. I am so lucky.

 

[godnotgod]

Sunyata is simply not compatible with "cosmic consciousness"

Sunyata

Lord Buddha says; “Sunyata is the ultimate reality. It is above all comprehensions and any attempt to describe would be an error. The ultimate reality, the limitless luminosity, the eternal noumenon beyond all phenomena, ought to be evidently infinite, unlimited, unconditional and without attributes.”

Sunyata is the consciousness beyond conceptual mind. [IOW 'universal consciousness']

Sunyata is the true nature of our mind. The universal oneness in nature, non-dualistic, and non-substantial is the essence and the nature of mind.

The concept of Sunyata has seamless continuity from Vedas and Upanishads. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, sage Yagyavalkya was asked by his pupils to explain the nature of Brahmn -the universal consciousness, the universal oneness. The sage replied: “Neti Neti -Neither This, Nor That. Such is the Brahmn.”

Krishna is the pure consciousness, the inner consciousness, the Brahmn, the pure spirit residing deep in us which is uncreated, unborn, incorruptible and ever pure and universal.

The pure state of the mind is the Buddha Nature. In this sense Sunyata connotes universal oneness...

http://pirthiman.blogspot.com/2014/01/sunyata.html

 

[godnotgod]

Thank goodness you are here to correct me. I am so lucky.

You would be if you were to stop putting your own ideas ahead of Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Thank goodness you are here to correct me. I am so lucky.

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod said: ↑
The true nature of Reality is not open to opinion. It is one way, even though it is expressed in myriad ways.

Theoretically, that expression, in its myriad of ways, represents the opinions of their writers. The map is never the territory. Pretending one set of ideas accurately reflects the territory is patently absurd.

No. Reality itself is without opinion, idea, or doctrine. Seeing into the nature of Reality is a direct reflection of Reality itself, as a perfect mirror is a perfect reflection of all that it sees, and yet, retains no image of what it reflects. To pretend requires a formulation of an idea, but seeing has no such idea attached to it. Therefore, seeing cannot be pretension.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sunyata

Lord Buddha says; “Sunyata is the ultimate reality. It is above all comprehensions and any attempt to describe would be an error. The ultimate reality, the limitless luminosity, the eternal noumenon beyond all phenomena, ought to be evidently infinite, unlimited, unconditional and without attributes.”

Sunyata is the consciousness beyond conceptual mind. [IOW 'universal consciousness']

Sunyata is the true nature of our mind. The universal oneness in nature, non-dualistic, and non-substantial is the essence and the nature of mind.

The concept of Sunyata has seamless continuity from Vedas and Upanishads. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, sage Yagyavalkya was asked by his pupils to explain the nature of Brahmn -the universal consciousness, the universal oneness. The sage replied: “Neti Neti -Neither This, Nor That. Such is the Brahmn.”

Krishna is the pure consciousness, the inner consciousness, the Brahmn, the pure spirit residing deep in us which is uncreated, unborn, incorruptible and ever pure and universal.

The pure state of the mind is the Buddha Nature. In this sense Sunyata connotes universal oneness...

http://pirthiman.blogspot.com/2014/01/sunyata.html

Sunyata is the state of mind empty of thought...a still mind free of thought..... Given a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...there are numerous names given to this state depending on the religious tradition......liberation, moksha, salvation, cosmic consciousness, god consciousness, etc...

 

[YmirGF]

No. Reality itself is without opinion, idea, or doctrine. Seeing into the nature of Reality is a direct reflection of Reality itself, as a perfect mirror is a perfect reflection of all that it sees, and yet, retains no image of what it reflects. To pretend requires a formulation of an idea, but seeing has no such idea attached to it. Therefore, seeing cannot be pretension.

The pretense is that the seer has no need of spectacles. Jus' sayin'....

 

[Papoon]

I hadn't realized you were waxing poetic. I didn't say what you wrote was unimportant. I was pointing out a seeming contradiction.

In all fairness to the new fellow, I'm willing to cut him some slack for especially sloppy wording.

I am bereft with gratitude.

To be forgiven by a bhodisattva !

O glorious day !

Would that I could wax more Boolean,
And break the hearts of Turing and Wittgenstein,
But I ever fall short, and fail the needs of logicians and iconoclasts

I should hold my tongue in the presence of such overflowing perspicacity

Forgive me again for this paltry thanks,
Which makes not a jot of sense

 

[godnotgod]

The pretense is that the seer has no need of spectacles. Jus' sayin'....

That would be true only if there is such a 'seer', but in reality, no such seer exists; there is only the pure condition of seeing itself. Seeing itself means the vision has already been corrected, the correction being the realization that there is no seer of the seen.

 

[godnotgod]

I am bereft with gratitude.

To be forgiven by a bhodisattva !

O glorious day !

Would that I could wax more Boolean,
And break the hearts of Turing and Wittgenstein,
But I ever fall short, and fail the needs of logicians and iconoclasts

I should hold my tongue in the presence of such overflowing perspicacity

Forgive me again for this paltry thanks,
Which makes not a jot of sense

You may rise now, LOL.

 

[YmirGF]

I am bereft with gratitude.

To be forgiven by a bhodisattva !

O glorious day !

Would that I could wax more Boolean,
And break the hearts of Turing and Wittgenstein,
But I ever fall short, and fail the needs of logicians and iconoclasts

I should hold my tongue in the presence of such overflowing perspicacity

Forgive me again for this paltry thanks,
Which makes not a jot of sense

This is sweet.

But, I'm such a dork. Could you explain in slightly less pithy terms why what you wrote before was not a contradiction?

 

[YmirGF]

That would be true only if there is such a 'seer', but in reality, no such seer exists; there is only the pure condition of seeing itself. Seeing itself means the vision has already been corrected, the correction being the realization that there is no seer of the seen.

and the distortion arises when said non-existent seer returns to the world of duality.... hence their descriptions are less than perfect...

 

[Papoon]

This is sweet.

But, I'm such a dork. Could you explain in slightly less pithy terms why what you wrote before was not a contradiction?

I would rather not.

In the spirit of Gurdjieff, I seek to bury the bone deeper.

Superficiality weakens us.

Poetry is the gymnasium of the soul.

 

[godnotgod]

I would rather not.

In the spirit of Gurdjieff, I seek to bury the bone deeper.

Superficiality weakens us.

Poetry is the gymnasium of the soul.

woof!

 

[godnotgod]

and the distortion arises when said non-existent seer returns to the world of duality.... hence their descriptions are less than perfect...

Neither seer nor duality exist.