There is nothing to be achieved and there is no one to achieve it.
There is no one to be awakened.
Being is an idea through time. Move your hand and that motion is an idea of the senses and not real. Your moving hand is Maya (illusion) and your hand is made of Prakti (The substance of illusion). We only see Maya and not truth as that which is registered by our senses is compared to memory, and memory is not real. So real + fake can not = real. The flow of light to retina and that seen is REAL - BUT as soon as consigned is Maya. Consigning involves comparing the direct input of the senses to a memory or idea, and memories are at best imperfect registration of a past happening. Not real in themselves.
Meditation is a way of pretending to be in the Enlightened state (and rarely the pretending is near close for most who try). However one who has the truth may spontaneously meditate, as they may also spontaneously burp, whistle, drum, chew a leaf or speak. As they with true knowledge do not do.
Can one who is pretending to do what they believe to be sitting ZaZen achieve enlightenment? No. As someone who is pretending to drop a cup can not break it. Also the act, the action, has a doer and a doer is not awake to truth, so a doer of meditation is removed from the access of truth by their doing.
Where Karma means action, Phalum means the fruit of action. So 'doing for Phalum involves Karma' which also translates as 'doing for the Fruit is Action'.
No fruit, no karma. Karma is escaped by simply not desiring reward for action. That easy. No 7 lifetimes, no working off bad debt, no crashing your car because you pointed and starred at someone with a wart on their nose, or any such silly games. Karma no longer exists when the fruit is not desired. Detachment is gained.
Detachment via this method and Non-Doing via the one previously are the unification of Hinduism's, Buddhism's and Taoism's highest principals in one swoop.
Not seeking enlightenment is enlightenment BUT!! There is much more to it than that. The one must also be absolutely free on the seeking of anything or the doing of any acts. Life very much should go on, be deeply pleasurable and wonderful - but have no doer. Only detached spectator who is here only for the ride and not for the fruit.
This is a sage and that sage knows that the time they live within and the motions seen within that are nothing but a show, reflections shimmering off the lake of truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tao Wow | Daily Cup of Tao
.webp)
19 comments:
Why would you say that life should go on if it's only an illusion? Wouldn't that mean that there is equal value in living and not living? If the illusion is something to be desired, then why bother shattering it with meditation?
"Only detached spectator who is here only for the ride and not for the fruit."
Really love this. Thanks a lot :)
Ben:
Illusion is present only for doer and not for the awakened.
I'm not sure I follow you. You've said many times that the awakened see the illusion for what it is, an illusion. Seeing the illusion for what it is does not make the illusion disappear (else we'd be seeing Taoists disappear all around us as they unplug from the Matrix). This is implicit in your statement that life should go on, as well - if life is an illusion, and life goes on after awakening, then the illusion goes on after awakening.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just trying to explore the idea.
Hi Ben, All I have done is explore this idea for the last few years and I have reached this point several times, this time with a more solid and certain holding :) I just wish to remain here to truly accept it and finally, hopefully, adopt the position of they who do not speak.
The same question related to the illusion was a sticking point for me numerous times and I can only say that asking it is proof of not having it solved as once solved it you can smile at it.
Don't get tied to the language which is unfortunately the best we have, it is very ineffective, personal inquiry of these pointers is needed and realization is wordless.
The world around me is seen in just the same image as before - Mountains, not mountains, mountains. Yet, the seeing of it is altered. The end result is a world that looks just the same but is free if distortions.
Words don't work. Please just personalty consider the issues until clarity comes.
I have worked through these ideas my way and each, in the spirit of Taoism, must do that also.
~~
PS fading in and out of the visible light spectrum is just another joke once solved.
I'm pretty sure you're misjudging the extent to which language limits our thought, but all right. You don't seem very interested in discussion in any case, and I'd say it's fairly apparent that you're not going to consider anything I say. I suppose I shouldn't bother asking questions, however necessary they may seem. Perhaps in the future I will succeed in restraining my impulse for discussion, except for when you say something factually inaccurate...
I'm not really sure what the purpose of talking to people, or writing a blog, is if you have no intention of actually discussing other opinions (perhaps you just want a chorus of "spot on old chap!"), but your motivations are none of my business.
It is very telling that you combine the statements "each must examine it in their own way" and "please just consider it this way," by the way, as you really have no justification to suggest that your way is superior to mine.
P.S. - As you once challenged me to prove the existence of the past and future by doing something in either, I suppose you wouldn't object to me challenging you to prove the illusion by disappearing from the visible spectrum?
Illusion is for the actor only.
Disappearing from the visible light spectrum is a joke only as it has no sense to it. It is farcical. It is from the standpoint of one who sees things separate to themselves.
Wow...I am lost and my butt itches. Which hand should I use?
There is no spoon, anymore than there is a butt that itches.
Thank You...my itching has been relieved!
That's more like it, people who at least get Zen :D
Ben: Taking a step back from this and rereading the post and your replies to it, it is obvious that you simply missed the points made and then argued ideas which only arose from your own misinterpretation.
What points were made, and how did I misinterpret them? I see a number of points, and a number of possible responses to several of them, but if you're going to tell me I've misinterpreted it, at least have the courtesy to say where.
This is what I mean when I say that you evade my comments - you never address my points specifically, you simply say "no, you misunderstood" or "you're missing the point" - if you want a useful conversation, you have to say what I misunderstood and, preferably, what the correct interpretation would have been.
The fact that I disagree with you has two possible reasons: 1) I don't understand your argument, or 2) I understand your argument and think that you're wrong. You always seem to assume the former, even though every time I argue with you, I specifically state where I think you have gone wrong. I'm not really sure why you seem to think this, unless you have deluded yourself into thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. That, to use words you once did, is pure stagnation.
Hi Ben: I do not wish for an argument.
You only posted 4 questions as I see them.
Your initial questions;
BEN: Why would you say that life should go on if it's only an illusion?
ME: Illusion is for actor only, one convinced of a self. The mystery is only increased in splendor when you are free of that false premise.
BEN: Wouldn't that mean that there is equal value in living and not living?
ME: There is life and death in every moment. Death is only a concern when seen from an ego self.
BEN: If the illusion is something to be desired, then why bother shattering it with meditation?
ME: There is nothing to desire. Who should desire it? These questions all arise from the ego. Meditation does not shatter it. Meditation is pretending. It serves as a good practice or something nice to do only.
BEN: I suppose you wouldn't object to me challenging you to prove the illusion by disappearing from the visible spectrum?
ME: Again a question posed from the ego self. The true I is not in the visible light spectrum. One who had escaped the trap of the false self would see the joke.
Apart from those 4, which as I said all echo from Ego and miss the message of the post, the rest of what you said were statements that had no room for answer. When I asked you to find your own path you accused me by misquoting how I had said my way was superior. There is no superior or inferior. Escape the ego and see that.
Words are limitations and arguments reinforce the very trap that is to be escaped. You can prove this by continuing.
If "Death is only a concern when seen from an ego self," why is it that "Life very much should go on?" If you say that life and death don't matter, then you can't also say that one is preferable over the other.
My point about "shattering" the illusion was actually a reference to a phrase you used to have at the top of your blog (not sure now as you've done so many changes - I like the new title block, by the way), which went something like "...given a direct aim at shattering the illusion and exposing the WOW." My question was, why bother? What's the point? If only the ego self can desire something, then why do you want to shatter the illusion?
I think it's quite ironic that you claim that me challenging you to fade from the visible spectrum is a question posed from the ego, since a few weeks ago you challenged me to do something in the past. The two are extremely similar, and if I'm asking you from the ego, then I assume your question must have arisen from the ego as well.
I have found my own path - I've spent a lot of time thinking about a lot of these ideas. It's not like I'm quoting someone else to you here; I've thought it through and explored it myself. You act as though if I had found my own path, I'd agree with you - I have found my own path, and it has led me to disagree with you. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You also can't say both that "There is no superior or inferior" and "escape the ego and see that" at the same time, because "escape the ego and see that" directly implies that escaping the ego is superior to not escaping the ego. In fact, your entire blog either implies or directly states this. You can't say that one way is true and others are false, and then also say that there is no superior or inferior. It's nonsensical, like "everything inside this box is false," or "everything I have said is a lie."
You are simply talking from the ego and so this will not end.
You still draw comparisons in every statement instead of seeing the point that these only arise from the mind and only have validity in that I-mind-ego place. Which I say in return, you must escape to see the points I make.
If you have your own path, your own way, and you're happy with that. Then maybe expound your way or go and live it - simple isn't it?
Wait, how am I talking from the ego, exactly? I think you're just applying this label to me because I disagree with you and it's a convenient way for you to dismiss my points. I mean, I was talking about the ego - does the ego often discuss what happens if it doesn't exist?
Even if I am talking from the ego, and I do indeed have to escape the ego to see the points you're making, isn't that a circular line of reasoning? You're writing to shatter the illusion, but in order to understand your point, you must see through the illusion first, so...why are you writing?
I have my own way, and yes, I am happy with it. The difference between you and me is that I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong, so I like to discuss ideas with other people and see if perhaps I don't have it quite right. Notice how all of my comments are asking questions, while all of your posts and comments are espousing your worldview, generally without giving any reason why you're right?
Don't you think that says something?
Yes the ego will discuss itself all day long.
Will you take this debate to your grave, to next week, to discussions with peers?
If this debate will die with you or before you then it fits the category of transient illusion. Just like the ego.
Something though will outlive all of that - and that is what I am pointing to.
It will discuss itself, of course; but will it discuss the possibility of its own nonexistence? Your entire blog is about the nonexistence of the ego - is your entire blog written from the ego, then?
I will, personally, continue this debate either until I figure it out or until I die; if not with you, then on my own or with another. I like exploring reality and enhancing my understanding of the world. Discussions with others are useful for illuminating ideas that never occurred to me - in lieu of that, I simply ponder questions on my own.
My discussion with you will die when we stop talking (although this could hardly be called a debate). The debate over the basic questions of life, however, will continue for many years, as it has continued for all the years since human beings first experienced the emotion of wonder. Perhaps it will never be answered, perhaps it cannot be answered; but the discussion will certainly not die with either of us.
Post a Comment