From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-08-26, Richmond  wrote:   
      
   >> "They Said It Was Simple" - Wei Wu Wei   
   >>   
   >> 31. They Said It was Simple   
   >>   
   >> STRANGE TO SAY - and how rare it is! - the term 'phenomena'   
   >> implies precisely what etymologically it says. Every   
   >> thing, every conceivable thing, that our senses, and   
   >> our mind (which interprets what our senses perceive)   
   >> cognise, is exactly an 'appearance', i.e., an appearance   
   >> in consciousness interpreted as an event extended in space   
   >> and in duration and objectified in a world external to that   
   >> which cognises it. And simultaneously that which cognises   
   >> it assumes that it is the subject of the cognition and,   
   >> as such, an entity apart from that which is cognised.   
   >>   
   >> As long as these associated assumptions subsist, the   
   >> correlated assumption of 'bondage', and the painful   
   >> sensations accompanying that assumption, must necessarily   
   >> remain intact.   
   >>   
   >> Therefore release from this assumed 'bondage' can only be   
   >> obtained by comprehending the falsity of these assumptions   
   >> which are responsible for the presumed bondage, for both   
   >> 'assumptions' and 'bondage' are apparent only, i.e.,   
   >> are purely 'phenomenal'.   
   >>   
   >> 'Appearance' is precisely what the word implies, i.e.,   
   >> something that 'seems to be', not 'something that is'.   
   >>   
   >> If this is realised - and how obvious it should be, since   
   >> the terms themselves say it precisely! - the psychological   
   >> elements of a purely psychological bondage are severed,   
   >> and only the psychological conditioning occasioned by   
   >> that 'bondage' remains, and this, like all conditioning,   
   >> will dissolve as a result of a process of de-conditioning   
   >> which consists in the establishment of the concept of   
   >> 'appearance' (phenomenon) in place of the concept of   
   >> 'reality'.   
   >>   
   >> The dissolution of that which is cognised as 'real' and   
   >> 'separate', as events extended in space and in time,   
   >> necessarily involves the dissolution of the assumed   
   >> cognising entity, and both are then seen as phenomena,   
   >> or appearance, in consciousness.   
   >>   
   >> When this readjustment is effected both subject and   
   >> object no longer exist as such, and no entity remains   
   >> which could be conceived as being 'bound'. That is -   
   >> bondage is no more.   
   >>   
   >> How very simple indeed it is!   
   >>   
   >> Note: 'Then who am I?' If anyone could tell you that,   
   >> what you were told would necessarily be nonsense - for   
   >> it would be just another object, as phenomenal as the   
   >> rest. Some day you will know automatically what you are -   
   >> which is what the Masters meant when they said so often,   
   >> 'You will know of yourself whether water is tepid or cold'   
   >> - or, you will just be that knowledge.   
   >   
   > Where does the quotation end?   
      
   At the end of this line:   
      
   >> - or, you will just be that knowledge.   
      
   > It looks like a very long way of saying 'The cause of   
   > suffering is clinging'.   
      
   Like anything involving words, readers supply their   
   private meanings to the words, then filter/interpret   
   the overall result in the context of their   
   understanding-of/experience-with the notions they believe   
   they're apprehending.   
      
   So, sure.. to you you it "looks like a very long way of   
   saying 'The cause of suffering is clinging'". I could   
   type out what it's saying to me, but given what I just   
   explained, you'll not necessarily know what I mean by my   
   explanation - or might think you do, but I'll have no way   
   of knowing whether that's the case in the context of all   
   my private meanings/filtering/interpretation. In fact,   
   there's a good chance you don't know what I mean by my   
   explanation of how conclusions possibly settle out of   
   collections of words encountered.   
      
   What I can say it's I've read those words many times over   
   a couple decades, and their significance has changed many   
   times along the way, which is why I'm saying that I can't   
   say what it says in some way that objectively delivers to   
   you what it means/seems to me, because that's not even been   
   the case in my own closed - but evolving - conceptuality   
   context, aka "mind".   
      
   Another thing I can say is my current relationship with   
   that text is one of being deeply moved by it. But, again,   
   you don't have my private/specific meanings, my learning,   
   my experience, and the number of times I've visited the   
   same text.   
      
   So all I can say overall is in my experience, doing the   
   work to grok and re-grok it pays worthwhile dividends. But   
   again, *for me*, and I'm assuming it might work for you   
   the way it did for me.   
      
   --   
   Oh, for the love of signature silliness....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)