XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 11/22/2016 11:42 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:   
   >   
   > "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:6qf93c9mt4smr2k9nf6qrfppu1h3ml4jqd@4ax.com...   
   >> "Ned Ludd" wrote:   
   >>>  But we can do 'more' first.  Just to be sure, it appears as if   
   >>> you're attempting to establish 'existence' as a basis of shared   
   >>> reality. Is this correct? (You seem to be put off by the swami's   
   >>> claim that he couldn't be conceived or perceived.)   
   >>   
   >> Not quite. The swami made a statement about his ultimate nature, or   
   >> state,, that it is not conceivable (by thought) and not perceivable   
   >> (by sense, including mental sense), but he must have had some direct   
   >> knowledge of his nature even to be able to indicate it through   
   >> negation. So my question was more along the lines of: in this matter   
   >> of ultimate or true nature, what is known and what knows it?   
   >>   
   >   
   >  Maybe he'd given up all the pieces.  To then ask him "What is   
   > known?" and "What knows it?" and what is his direct knowledge   
   > of his nature, would require him to work with the pieces again.   
   >   
   > ...   
   >>>  Remember the Heart sutra, where Buddha looked down on all   
   >>> of heaven and earth, and all he saw were five heaps? And all of   
   >>> the five heaps were empty?  So THAT hierarchy has five steps,   
   >>> as opposed to your four...   
   >>>   
   >>>  [consciousness]   
   >>>        :   
   >>>  [willful constructions]   
   >>>        :   
   >>>  [ideas]   
   >>>        :   
   >>>  [feeling/sensation]   
   >>>        :   
   >>>  [form]   
   >>>   
   >>>  One leads to the next above it, is subsumed in it, and made into   
   >>> a more complex whole. That supposedly accounts for everything   
   >>> in the universe.  There is nothing but that in the entire universe.   
   >>>   
   >>>  So, how does the swami appear to you now?   
   >>   
   >> Not how does he appear to me, how did he appear to himself.   
   >> His self-knowing knew what? A corollary statement of his was:   
   >> free of all the universes. At the very least, free of the heap of   
   >> consciousness, but how does consciousness arrive there?   
   >>   
   >   
   >  ?? How does consciousness arrive at the freeing of the heap   
   > of consciousness?  Is that what you are asking?  Probably   
   > without consciousness, but that's just a guess.   
   >   
   >  Asking 'what it looks like' is a really loaded question in this   
   > case.  It's quite a bit more than one question, and it presumes   
   > things that you may have worked hard to abandon.  Remember   
   > the "three liberations"?   
   >   
   >  If things really are empty and have no self, then what do they   
   > look like?  If all things are signless, and have no marks other   
   > than what we bring to them and adorn them with, then what do   
   > they look like?  If all things are 'wishless', have no desire or   
   > intent or goal, then what do they look like?   
   >   
   > Ned   
   >   
      
   Plato's cave provides an easy answer.  Since all things seen therein   
   are but shadows of what they are, what the appearance of things that are   
   empty, have no being, are signless, have the marks that we bring to   
   them... examples of which are the unicorn and the "fully awakened",   
   is equally shadowy.  Trust Plato.  Life is a shadow play.  Enlightenment   
   acquiesces that view of things.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)