31 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuce"I am asking if it's possible that Jesus is here on earth and has been for quite a while separate from the world aware to it,.."
I am asking if it's possible that Jesus is here on earth and has been for quite a while separate from the world aware to it, but that, he might be, to magnify the law and make it honorable as is written he shall, that ALL shall return to the Lord, known as The Great Awakening, and this is why he's called a lion, yet, like the prodigal son, returning b ...[text shortened]... b once again as referenced in Revelation 5:4-6 (King James Version). This is what I am asking.
Matthew 24:27 - For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
You're way off base man.
31 Oct 10
Originally posted by josephwUnderstanding of what each other is saying comes before agreement or disagreement. So thanks for a good question. It is difficult to convey, and is why it is often referred to as "pointing to". It IS ultimately undefinable but it is not unknowable. That is the difference.
Don't get me wrong Taoman. There is truth in what you and black beetle say. But I reject the notion of non-absolutism. That's not a rejection of you guys, it's just that I believe in a more concrete way of understanding things.
Of course I expect to hear something from you that explains why, what I say, falls short of the mark.
Please explain how you can hold to a "way" that has as its' guiding principle that all is undefinable.
So to answer -"Please explain how you can hold to a "way" that has as its' guiding principle that all is undefinable."
The best I can do is give an illustration. A common one is to do with the moon. You are before a lake and the moon is above, reflecting in the water. A serene and quite lovely spot, and you or I are reflecting before it all.
Now let's start to define what is the reality of all this. If I go down the more concrete way I could describe many things, the shape of the moon, the reason for the reflections, the sounds etc. You could get very descriptive and detailed too.
But does that describe the reality of it ALL as a whole?
Is the moon the moon just by itself, and the water the water just by itself?
Moon, water and reflection all require each other to do that to create a whole reality.
The whole effect of that scene is being contemplated by a mind. A subject (the mind) is contemplating an object (the scene). Both require each other to "work".
The qualities evoked in the mind by this serene scene, arising in THAT person's mind at THAT moment (yesterday he would have had a headache changing the whole "setup" again) are supremely unique and only ever partially describable from one person to another. Usually poetry or music works best in trying to convey the full reality of the quality of such a moment.
It is so with everything we experience, a traffic jam or an argument, a delicious ice cream on a hot day, or a romp in bed.
This approach to "blending with" or letting go of our analytical mind (it has its role however at other times) leads one to becoming oblivious of any sense of "self" for you begin to realize nothing is separate from everything else, a totally independent "self" existing thing by itself. And that includes whatever "I" am.
I don't mind describing things in the "concrete manner, we have to do that often to live in this seemingly hard edged manifestation. But it is not the total reality and to enter into that total reality you will NEVER do it by "concrete analysis, argument and logic. Trying to be in the Wholeness is never achieved by first splitting things up into definitions, categories etc. It is rather achieved by going down the "neither this, nor that...etc. " way of appreciating life that was taught by Tathagata.
31 Oct 10
From the Smetham pdf referred to at beginning of post:
"....In fact the metaphysical model of the creation and functioning of the universe presented in this work has truly awe-inspiring and deeply significant implications for our understanding of and our engagement with the process of reality. In particular it must be pointed out that in actuality the account presented rules out a particular picture of God, the picture generally associated with naïve and fundamentalist views of theistic religion.
However there are much less naïve and more philosophically coherent images of the notion of God which are associated with the mystical dimensions of theistic religions; this is the notion of God as the infinitely creative source and sustainer of the universe, a creative dimension of Being that, seemingly with purpose, fragments an infinite primordial awareness into a vast multitude of experiencing sentient beings."
[Thought that was well expressed and in relation to many of the "God" posts of the forum.]
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by josephwI am treating all the beings, all the entities, all the objects and all the phenomena of the World 1 (of our physical world, thus the observer universe and all observers within it), of the World 2 (our inner world, thus our feelings) and of the World 3 (all our concepts, ideas, philosophies, religions etc) as if they had inherent existence. Then I demonstrate that they have no inherent existence because, whenever we are accepting this denotion, all the possible consequenses are either absurd or impossible. So I am constantly aware of the fact that the imputation of the inherent existence is caused solely out of our innate mode of perception; and then I cultivate my constant awareness regarding the Two Truths: the conventional truth of the determinate (the common) everyday reality, and the ultimate truth of the indeterminate nature of reality;
Don't get me wrong Taoman. There is truth in what you and black beetle say. But I reject the notion of non-absolutism. That's not a rejection of you guys, it's just that I believe in a more concrete way of understanding things.
Of course I expect to hear something from you that explains why, what I say, falls short of the mark.
Please explain how you can hold to a "way" that has as its' guiding principle that all is undefinable.
Therefore I acknowledge the seeming reality and the ultimate reality, and due to this discrimination I see that all phenomena have no determine core of substantial reality. Of course, this does not mean that I am clingling to a "way" that is based on the assumption that "all is undefinable". It means solely that I have no attachment to the phenomena because I am aware of the fact that, although they are real, they do lack of inherent existence😵
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanI have only one thing to say.
Some may be interested in this book. It brings together aspects of Buddhist understanding of the nature of "reality", quantum physics, conciousness, and the latest attempt by modern physicists, Hawking included, at a TOE (Theory of Everything).
Towards the bottom of the page is a free related pdf essay called.
"The Grand Designer: Discovering the Quant ...[text shortened]... ks good reading.
Link: http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/
Cheers, friends of Tathagata.
Aqua Buddah!!! 😛
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by whodeyMmm. Somewhat enigmatic. If its koan must I spend the next 50 years trying to see through it?
I have only one thing to say.
Aqua Buddah!!! 😛
The only aqua (sky blue) buddah I know is Samantabhadra. He is depicted naked and blue to represent the blue empty sky of awareness. He is also depicted with his consort in sexual union but that is another story.
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanI knew once a Samata, but her last name wasn't Bhadra, as I can recall.
Mmm. Somewhat enigmatic. If its koan must I spend the next 50 years trying to see through it?
The only aqua (sky blue) buddah I know is Samantabhadra. He is depicted naked and blue to represent the blue empty sky of awareness. He is also depicted with his consort in sexual union but that is another story.
She was hot.
02 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanAsk Rand Paul. 😛
Mmm. Somewhat enigmatic. If its koan must I spend the next 50 years trying to see through it?
The only aqua (sky blue) buddah I know is Samantabhadra. He is depicted naked and blue to represent the blue empty sky of awareness. He is also depicted with his consort in sexual union but that is another story.
02 Nov 10
Originally posted by whodeyOk. Checked it out. Not up with the details of US politics, as you are probably not with Oz politics, for what they are worth. (Don't go there, its an unedifying bunfight at present.)
Ask Rand Paul. 😛
Anyway, forgive my denseness, I am still unsure what point you are trying to make.
Deny everything?
Zealotry?
Red herring?
Kindly elucidate me, whodey.
02 Nov 10
I just wanted to thank Taoman for this thread. I've wanted to start one on the same subject but I admit, I wouldn't have been as concise as you guys have been.
This basic idea has been around in the mainstream since the Dao of Physics by Capra. As with all revolutionary ideas , they are usually dismantled or overhauled or just thrown away by the mainstream scientists.
It seems the quantum world is here to stay. In fact, to one of my persuaion, I would go along with the notion that this "quantum world" is becomming/has become (?) more of a "concrete" reality than my previous, 3-d perception of what was formerly known as "concrete reality" for me.
02 Nov 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI think you'd really like a small book I encountered some years ago. Its not heavy or academic, but a popular entertaining summary of the stuff coming out of the quantum findings. Lots of good information and leaves you definitely with a different take on our seemingly so solid world. It sort of really shifted me at the time.
I just wanted to thank Taoman for this thread. I've wanted to start one on the same subject but I admit, I wouldn't have been as concise as you guys have been.
This basic idea has been around in the mainstream since the Dao of Physics by Capra. As with all revolutionary ideas , they are usually dismantled or overhauled or just thrown away by the mainst ...[text shortened]... han my previous, 3-d perception of what was formerly known as "concrete reality" for me.
Its called "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. Ever come across it, I reckon grab it.
02 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanNope, I just like saying "Aqua Buddah"!! 😲
Ok. Checked it out. Not up with the details of US politics, as you are probably not with Oz politics, for what they are worth. (Don't go there, its an unedifying bunfight at present.)
Anyway, forgive my denseness, I am still unsure what point you are trying to make.
Deny everything?
Zealotry?
Red herring?
Kindly elucidate me, whodey.
Sorry, I saw the word Buddah in your post and felt compelled to say it.
Carry on.
03 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyOk. Go right on on aqua buddahing. The story of Rand's supposed aqua buddhaing event was entertaining. US politics is a niche unto itself.
Nope, I just like saying "Aqua Buddah"!! 😲
Sorry, I saw the word Buddah in your post and felt compelled to say it.
Carry on.
Big about turn on Obama. Poor man, he was passed one of the worst schemozzles in economic history. What? He hasn't fixed it yet! Talk about a poisoned chalice.
But I think that is another forum.
Cheers.