How To Be Blissful Awareness

[KipMazuy]

"To be aware
is to be vulnerable.

Many seek meditation
because they believe
it is a way
to step out of life.
And for them
little peace is found.

Meditation is about feeling.
It is about consciously
allowing all feelings
to be.

Often one may feel
a pain
or pressure
in their heart.

If you can let yourself
feel this pain.
If you can surrender
to the moment and
accept that in life
there is pain,
and that to be present
is to be vulnerable,

then all feelings
can move through you
as energy
and you will feel
a love so pure
that it might even
make you cry.

In absolute surrender
in the moment,
you will see
that there is something
so much larger
than who you think you are.
So large it is everywhere and everything.
It is what you are made of.
It nurtures you, supports you,
it fills you with a warm glow
radiating from your heart.

Blessings,

Kip"

[sahyo]

Meditation is about



"about" hasn't happened

[Buddhafly]

Has anyone experienced "Blissful Awareness" during meditation?
When I enter into samadi what I experience is a feeling of bliss
also awareness of nothing and everything all in white light.
No sound. No thought.
That's it.
I understand there are different "levels" of samadi.
Attempting not to hope for a new response is trying for me
besides that would rather defeat the purpose.


*Struggling for no thing*

[beesting42]

Has anyone experienced "Blissful Awareness" during meditation?
When I enter into samadi what I experience is a feeling of bliss
also awareness of nothing and everything all in white light.
No sound. No thought.
That's it.
I understand there are different "levels" of samadi.
Attempting not to hope for a new response is trying for me
besides that would rather defeat the purpose.

thought is a pre-requisite of experience. if there was experience there was thought.

the absence of thought is called nirvana.

[Buddhafly]

Originally posted by beesting42@Feb 15 2005, 12:48 PM

thought is a pre-requisite of experience. if there was experience there was thought.

the absence of thought is called nirvana.
On what premise would thought be a pre-requisite to experience?
I do not have to think to know the wind blows on my face.

"The ultimate goal of meditation is to enter the state of samadhi which is when the distinction between the object and the meditator disappears, which is the realization of non-dualism. This state is a prerequisite to entering the four levels of jhana and enlightenment."

[VossistArts]

Originally posted by Buddhafly+Feb 18 2005, 05:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buddhafly @ Feb 18 2005, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--beesting42@Feb 15 2005, 12:48 PM

thought is a pre-requisite of experience. if there was experience there was thought.

the absence of thought is called nirvana.
On what premise would thought be a pre-requisite to experience?
I do not have to think to know the wind blows on my face.

"The ultimate goal of meditation is to enter the state of samadhi which is when the distinction between the object and the meditator disappears, which is the realization of non-dualism. This state is a prerequisite to entering the four levels of jhana and enlightenment." [/b][/quote]
Quite true. Thought is not prerequisite, its postic to ground awareness. Things just are, then we call them things. In my experience Ive come to recognize my processing experience thru re-creating my world out of words and concepts to be the very culprit that causes me this abstract feeling that I have been seperated from my true home or rightful place in things. I see that when there is no thought, when langauge ceases, and knowing is purely cognative , that everything flows together..consciousness projects and absords consciousness. when my mind is full of words that represent what is, along with concepts that define my words, there are inherent limits placed on the world around me that creates a distinctions that are like walls. There is the observer and detailer, myself, and then there are all the objects around me that ive named and define. Me and them. me seperated of course by and. then them.

Im convinced that the way to going home is wrapped up in stopping the internal dialoge.
this state of being isnt what is considered nivana by the way. Nirvana is a re-merging of the consciousness principle into the source stream for phenomenal reality and probably everything else, or noumena. altho attaining to nirvana is supposed to contingent upon intention, it is also considered to be a form of annihilation, and contrary to popular belief is not the highest ideal in buddhism. the highest ideal is bodhisattva.

People often attract to the notion of meditation and ascension, as a way to happiness and feelings of bliss. There is no reward in happiness nor is there anything to gain in bliss. tho it sounds harsh, reward is found as happiness by way of suffering and bliss is found as relief from pain by dissolving ignorance. If everyone were only happy and blissful, no one would likely evolve or grow. by the way too, happiness and bliss probably should not be sought out as permant states to reside in. They belong only to brief moments in time and if theyre somehow extended beyond their time they become attachments and sources for further suffering~!
BEWARE OF HAPINESS AND BLISS!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!![I]

[Thomas Knierim]

VA: In my experience Ive come to recognize my processing experience thru re-creating my world out of words and concepts to be the very culprit that causes me this abstract feeling that I have been seperated from my true home or rightful place in things.

That is indeed what happens.

The world of thought is an alternative world which stands apart from the now. By immersion into the conceptual we withdraw ourselves from the now and from being. This can lead to problems if it happens unaware and if the conceptual and the non-conceptual are confused. But not necessarily so.

The conceptual is based on names. Naming is a form of acquisition and by naming things, we gain intellectual ownership of these things. For example, if I name a thing a tree, I can operate with the tree concept, and if I further distinguish between oak trees, chest nut trees, beech trees, and so on, I can operate in an even more varied and precise way. The named things become little chess figures which I can move around in my mind. The world thus becomes controllable.

The question that arises is: where is my true place as a human being? Is it in the now, or is it in the conceptual? Is there any such thing as a "true place"?

VA: altho attaining to nirvana is supposed to contingent upon intention, it is also considered to be a form of annihilation,

Annihilation of individual consciousness? What else could it be?

VA: contrary to popular belief is not the highest ideal in buddhism. the highest ideal is bodhisattva.

That is true for Mahayana Buddhism. In Hinayana (Theravadian) Buddhism, the highest ideal is the arahat, i.e. one who has attained enlightenment and who will therefore enter into nirvana upon death. From my point of view, Mahayana Buddhism is more consistent, because one must ask what keeps the arahat from entering nirvana right upon the attainment of enlightenment instead of dragging on in samsara until the physical death of the body.

VA: tho it sounds harsh, reward is found as happiness by way of suffering and bliss is found as relief from pain by dissolving ignorance.

I agree with this. Suffering is often rewarding, because it provides a strong motivational power to overcome suffering. It spurns development and growth. By contrast, happy states bolster complacency and stagnation. Harsh but true. <_<

Cheers, Thomas

[VossistArts]

The question that arises is: where is my true place as a human being? Is it in the now, or is it in the conceptual? Is there any such thing as a "true place"?

The only way I have of attempting an answer, at least for myself, is by comparing the method and process of naming items, learning their names and reinforcing the labels through memory and forming concepts to define the names, with an experience I had only once for a short time>. To make it shortest, I experienced about... 10 minutes of awareness where I had no active internal dialog , and where I experienced what was around me cognitively. It wasn't like I imagine total silence, because there was a distant.. like.,. reflective thing, the creation of faint memories or impressions of the experience that was there.There is very little I can describe of it, but sitting in that parking lot on a 90 deg summer day, with traffic and people and noise all around me, all of these things seemed to lose their usual qualities; it became no longer hot or uncomfortable though whatever it was( the temp of the day) was still somehow there, and the noise from traffic and people at a car wash, became... like covered in wind or water, the noise almost vanished, but was still there. I felt somehow elevated above everything although my visual range was not affected and above all and everything a faint sound like a wind blowing through tall pines at a mountain top. I looked around at things like that a while, and finally I had the thought, that the way I had just been experiencing the world was brand new... like being reborn and taking on a new way to process the world of things other than the conceptual processing. Everything that I was seeing was known, and I grasped it all silently, no need to name or reinforce anything. Everything seemed to flow in and out of my consciousness thru my senses, everything connected.
My point I guess is to answer by comparison. I cant say what is ultimate because i think there is always more but, i do feel that the truer of the space is in the now, to be found cognitively rather than conceptually.

Annihilation of individual consciousness? What else could it be?.

I always wondered about the arhat. I understand that the inherent suffering of samsara compels this kind of Buddha to nirvana, but why?? As we become more skilled and familiar with things, such as dealing with the world of suffering and our attachments, is this suffering really so awful that in our highest of moments wed seek to be free of it forever at the expense of our participation in being, lost forever? How is there any kind of point to that? Somehow I think it is mistaken to believe that anyone that we've ever known about has explored the full potential of what human beings can accomplish through intentions and Mind. As long as we recognize limits in our abilities I feel there is more to be unveiled. do you think so too? All of what ive read concerning a being choosing incarnations in other, better realms of reality, well... i have to take that as fantasy at this point. All i know is what im aware of and this is it. I cant imagine choosing not to be, just to avoid suffering.

[sahyo]

suffering imagines-voiding which ceases imagining-void

[Thomas Knierim]

VossistArts: I felt somehow elevated above everything although my visual range was not affected and above all and everything a faint sound like a wind blowing through tall pines at a mountain top. [...] Everything seemed to flow in and out of my consciousness thru my senses, everything connected.

It sounds like you are describing a state of altered consciousness that a Buddhist would call 'jhana' or absorption. This form of absorption can be induced by meditation. It also sounds like the experience had a certain dissociative quality to it. Would you say that is correct?

I am myself not sure about the answer to the question whether our natural mental dwelling place is in the now or in the conceptual. It seems that our language ability predestines us for the conceptual. One might have to ask: is being in the conceptual and being in the now mutually exclusive?

We are not the only conceptual beings on Earth, by the way. Other mammals are likewise capable of forming abstract concepts. Extensive research has been done with chimpanzees, our closest relatives, and it seems that their brain is evolutionary on the verge of using symbols as we do.

VossistArts: I understand that the inherent suffering of samsara compels this kind of Buddha to nirvana, but why?

I suppose this has to do with the doctrinal aspect of Buddhism. The four noble truth and the eightfold path spell the way to the end of craving, therefore to the end of suffering. If you apply the causal logic of the doctrine of the dependent origination, the end of suffering implies the effacement of self and personal identity. Hence, nirvana is the logical end of Buddhist practice.

While this is lofty and coherent to that point, I see incoherence in the ideal of the arahat (for the named reasons) as well as in the duality of samsara and nirvana. If samsara and nirvana are really separate, how comes we can access nirvana at all? And if karma is what keeps us from entering nirvana, wouldn't it be the best strategy to plunge into severe suffering and 'burn' all that karma rightaway? Not to mention the ostensible contradiction between samsara and anatta (non-self).

I think that Buddhism is philosophically more sophisticated, logically more coherent, and psychologically deeper than most other religions, but it is not without contradictions. However, these contradictions oscillate at a very high level and do in fact question the validity of logic itself (see Buddhist Logic (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=21)), which makes it quite tantalising.

Cheers, Thomas

[MGregory]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@May 16 2005, 12:17 AM
VA: contrary to popular belief is not the highest ideal in buddhism. the highest ideal is bodhisattva.

That is true for Mahayana Buddhism. In Hinayana (Theravadian) Buddhism, the highest ideal is the arahat, i.e. one who has attained enlightenment and who will therefore enter into nirvana upon death. From my point of view, Mahayana Buddhism is more consistent, because one must ask what keeps the arahat from entering nirvana right upon the attainment of enlightenment instead of dragging on in samsara until the physical death of the body.
An arahat does reach nirvana. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta.../mn011-nt0.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn011-nt0.html)

"Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"

[VossistArts]

Originally posted by MGregory@May 19 2005, 10:09 PM

An arahat does reach nirvana. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta.../mn011-nt0.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn011-nt0.html)

"Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"
Hm It appears you are correct.Still Ill have to look at more... you know?evidence (http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell10.htm)

[Thomas Knierim]

MGregory: An arahat does reach nirvana.

Yes, that is what the Hinayana doctrine says. I do not deny that. Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly. VossistArts said that the highest Buddhist ideal is the bodhisattva, to which I replied that this is the case for Mahayana and that in Hinayana, it is the figure of the arahat.

According to my understanding, both, the arahat and the bodhisattva, are self-liberated beings, although the bodhisattva is -unlike the arahat- not a Buddha. Moreover, only Buddhas have "attained" nirvana. Nirvana literally means non-attachment. Some of the words used by Gautama while referring to nirvana are:

''Anakkheyya'' (cannot be described), 'infinite'' (ananta), ''non-conditioned''. (asamkhata), 'incomparable'' (anupameya), ''supreme'' (anuttara), ''highest'' (para), ''beyond'' (paara), ''highest refuge'' (parayana), ''safety'' (tana), ''security'' (khema), ''happiness (siva), ''unique'' (kevala), ''abodeless'' (analaya), ''imperishable'' (akkhara), ''absolute purity'' (visuddho), ''supramundane'' (lokuttara), ''immortality'' (amata), ''emancipation'' (mutti), ''peace'' (santi), etc. (Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk213.htm )

Furthermore, Buddhists make a difference between nirvana and para-nirvana. According to Buddhism, a Buddha (but not a bodhisattva) enters para-nirvana (para = "the highest") upon death of the body. For example, the Shakyamuni Buddha entered para-nirvana upon his physical death. Likewise para-nirvana is attained by the arahat who dies. In fact, the arahat ideal is modeled after the Buddha's life.

The inconsistency I see is this: If the arahat has achieved nirvana and if the ultimate goal is para-nirvana, non-return, then what is the point in maintaining the body/mind until the point of death? Why not die right away? You might object that the arahat may want to spend the remaining time up to natural death usefully by teaching others. But then the opposite question arises: why entering para-nirvana at all? If teaching others is important, if there's work is to be done, then why entering nirvana/para-nirvana?

That's why I think the arahat ideal is inconsistent. Or do I miss something?

Cheers, Thomas

[VossistArts]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@May 20 2005, 05:52 PM
MGregory: An arahat does reach nirvana.




Furthermore, Buddhists make a difference between nirvana and para-nirvana. According to Buddhism, a Buddha (but not a bodhisattva) enters para-nirvana (para = "the highest") upon death of the body. For example, the Shakyamuni Buddha entered para-nirvana upon his physical death. Likewise para-nirvana is attained by the arahat who dies. In fact, the arahat ideal is modeled after the Buddha's life.

The inconsistency I see is this: If the arahat has achieved nirvana and if the ultimate goal is para-nirvana, non-return, then what is the point in maintaining the body/mind until the point of death? Why not die right away? You might object that the arahat may want to spend the remaining time up to natural death usefully by teaching others. But then the opposite question arises: why entering para-nirvana at all? If teaching others is important, if there's work is to be done, then why entering nirvana/para-nirvana?

That's why I think the arahat ideal is inconsistent. Or do I miss something?

Cheers, Thomas
At first I wondered how anyone knew that Shakyamuni buddha entered parinirvana when he died, but now I guess it is probably because he said he would? I suppose he would know. Maybe thats the case with the why of entering paranirvana. Maybe Shakyamuni or other arhats know something we dont know..or that we'll only know if we're in their place.

also does non-return mean not manifesting in any possible place, or does it just mean not returning to this place? I can see how its possible that a person evolves beyond this world because I lean towards thinking there must always be more. Im aware of the possibility there maybe there is not more.. but only recently have I considered that. Perhaps if the Buddha was aware that there is more, maybe like nirvana there is nothing he could say to us to convey what it is..??

oh and i wanted to ask, has anyone here read much of the Shurangama sutra?

[MGregory]

Thomas,

Sorry for the delay, I've been really busy lately.

According to my understanding, both, the arahat and the bodhisattva, are self-liberated beings, although the bodhisattva is -unlike the arahat- not a Buddha.
An arahat isn't a Buddha, either, according to...well, I don't remember what scripture it is, but I remember reading something in the Sutta Pitaka that said that only one Buddha can exist in any "world-system" at a time. I think this is what the Mahayanists reject, and I think that's the fundamental difference between the two schools. I'm almost certain that the Mahayanists fully believe in the arahat ideal, it's just that the Hinayanists believe that that is the end, and the Mahayanists are all about going beyond that into Bodhisattvahood. I think they even reclassify arahats as sravakas (sound-hearers) and pratyekabuddhas (enlightened people who don't try to enlighten others). The Zen guys speak low of it, but I'm pretty sure it's still a very high ideal for them. But all of the Mahayanist scriptures are based on and are elaborations of the Hinayanhist scriptures.

Moreover, only Buddhas have "attained" nirvana. Nirvana literally means non-attachment.
I thought "nirvana" literally means "extinction" or "blown out" like a candle.

In the Majjhima Nikaya, the very first scripture in there, it gives descriptions of the different stages people can be in: the ordinary person, the disciple in higher training, the arahant, and the Tathagata. The only difference between the arahant part and the Tathagata part is that the Tathagata part says that he "has fully understood [earth as earth, water as water, etc.] to the end" (my italics) and that he has "awakened to supreme full enlightenment", whereas the arahant part doesn't say that, it just says he's free from the three unwholesome roots.

I don't really know much more than that. I haven't read any modern commentaries on Buddhism, but I think an arahat is enlightened, he just doesn't dwell in enlightened consciousness all the time, whereas a Buddha does. This is how Kevin and David resolve it, and it seems to me like the only sensible way to resolve it.

Furthermore, Buddhists make a difference between nirvana and para-nirvana. According to Buddhism, a Buddha (but not a bodhisattva) enters para-nirvana (para = "the highest") upon death of the body. For example, the Shakyamuni Buddha entered para-nirvana upon his physical death. Likewise para-nirvana is attained by the arahat who dies. In fact, the arahat ideal is modeled after the Buddha's life.
Yeah. I don't know what paranirvana is, but if "para" means "the highest" and "nirvana" means "extinction", then "paranirvana" just means "death". Someone who reaches paranirvana is not just dead, he's totally dead :-)

The inconsistency I see is this: If the arahat has achieved nirvana and if the ultimate goal is para-nirvana, non-return, then what is the point in maintaining the body/mind until the point of death? Why not die right away? You might object that the arahat may want to spend the remaining time up to natural death usefully by teaching others. But then the opposite question arises: why entering para-nirvana at all? If teaching others is important, if there's work is to be done, then why entering nirvana/para-nirvana?
I read about it in my readings of the Sutta Pitaka, but I can't now find the sutta that addressed this issue. They said it was like a mother cutting open the womb to have the baby early or something. They said some other things about it. In MN144 the disciple Channa kills himself because he's sick, but the Buddha said he was blameless because he was an arahant, so it seems that they're not entirely against suicide. I think the desire to kill oneself would be a desire, a defilement, so I don't think someone who is enlightened would have that defilement. It would take a lot of desire to kill oneself just to perform all that work, so I don't think that would exist in someone who had little desire.

[MGregory]

VossistArts,
At first I wondered how anyone knew that Shakyamuni buddha entered parinirvana when he died, but now I guess it is probably because he said he would?
Basically. There's no way to know if he really did or not. But Shakyamuni is just a literal figure, so if taken in that sense, an enlightened person can look at the figure and know that someone who was like that would have gone to parinirvana and he would know what that means exactly.

also does non-return mean not manifesting in any possible place, or does it just mean not returning to this place? I can see how its possible that a person evolves beyond this world because I lean towards thinking there must always be more. Im aware of the possibility there maybe there is not more.. but only recently have I considered that. Perhaps if the Buddha was aware that there is more, maybe like nirvana there is nothing he could say to us to convey what it is..??
A non-returner does not manifest in any place because someone who has reached nirvana, although they still appear to live and stuff, they have no concept of self, and all of their concepts are true, so they are literally extinct. There's nothing that can manifest anymore. The idea of a self that is alive is completely false. It's only something we imagine to exist, and that is what returns is this false idea.

oh and i wanted to ask, has anyone here read much of the Shurangama sutra?
I've read some of it.

[sahyo]

How To Be



not possible "How To Be"

[Thomas Knierim]

MGregory: An arahat isn't a Buddha, either, according to...well, I don't remember what scripture it is, ... I think they even reclassify arahats as sravakas (sound-hearers) and pratyekabuddhas (enlightened people who don't try to enlighten others).

In my humble opinion (and my opinion is really humble because I know I could be wrong) the differentiation between arahats and various types of Buddhas is rather esoteric. I have the feeling it is rather unessential to self realisation. So, I decided to acknowledge the existence of these subtleties within Buddhism, but give them no further attention. I have also no idea how a non-returner is different from an arahat.

In addition to arahats and Buddhas, the Theravadins have a concept of a once-returner and a stream-enterer. The once-returner is self-explanatory. The stream-enterer is a person who realised the basic truth of anatta (an-atman or non-self). Because of this realisation, the person will not diverge from the path of liberation anymore and goes through only a limited number of rebirth. There is a parallel in aviation known as v1 and v2 velocities in the take-off manoeuvre. V1 ist the speed where take-off manoeuvre cannot be cancelled anymore (stream-enterer) and v2 is the velocity where the plane is carried by the lift and drag, i.e. where it is ready for take-off (non-returner).

MGregory: I thought "nirvana" literally means "extinction" or "blown out" like a candle.

You are right. Sorry I made a mistake.

MGregory: I think an arahat is enlightened, he just doesn't dwell in enlightened consciousness all the time, whereas a Buddha does. This is how Kevin and David resolve it, and it seems to me like the only sensible way to resolve it.

The person that dwells only temporarily in enlightened consciousness is -according to the sutras- either a stream-enterer or a once-returner. This means both the arahat and the Buddha dwell in enlightened consciousness all the time. It also means that the difference between a Buddha and an arahat is even more difficult to understand.

MGregory: Someone who reaches paranirvana is not just dead, he's totally dead :-)

Yeah! Deader than dead! Dead with a non-return guarantee issued and stamped by the universe.

MGregory: In MN144 the disciple Channa kills himself because he's sick, but the Buddha said he was blameless because he was an arahant, so it seems that they're not entirely against suicide.

Yes, that would be logically coherent with the non-desire, arahat and nirvana paradigms. However, by taking one's life one ends the possibility to act in the world (and teach/help others for example) and that seems selfish. I guess this is a paradox that cannot be resolved. Therefore the bodhisattva ideal seems more consistent.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

They said some other things about it. In MN144 the disciple Channa kills himself because he's sick, but the Buddha said he was blameless because he was an arahant, so it seems that they're not entirely against suicide. I think the desire to kill oneself would be a desire, a defilement, so I don't think someone who is enlightened would have that defilement. It would take a lot of desire to kill oneself just to perform all that work, so I don't think that would exist in someone who had little desire.

no wouldn't "alot of desire" to cease sick body

[kowtaaia]

So far, all of the no-thought states that people have 'had' :lol: and talked about, are just delusions of thought and have nothing to do with the state of the unconditioned (of which, there is no beyond).

[imagist]

Originally posted by @--
It would take a lot of desire to kill oneself just to perform all that work, so I don't think that would exist in someone who had little desire.
[It would take a lot of desire to kill oneself just to perform all that work, so I don't think that would exist in someone who had little desire.]

Could not an enlightened one, in a state of thoughtless awareness, without desire, simply end their life? In the spirit of "When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm tired, I sleep. When I'm finished, I die."

Do you think it takes more 'desire' to live or to stop living?

[jsg]

Originally posted by ,--
One might have to ask: is being in the conceptual and being in the now mutually exclusive?
This question interests me too. One might describe the feeling of "being in the now" as the sense of observation without an observing self, and the feeling of "being in the conceptual" as the sense of thinking with a thinking self. The question then becomes, can there be thought without the sense of a thinking self? If one assumes that "being in the now" is primary and "being in the conceptual" is secondary, one can perhaps consider the latter a gloss on the former that can occur without activating the sense of a thinking self. But since in the everyday world we deal constantly with the conceptual by reading, conversing, writing posts, etc., and face deadlines and other pressures, the feeling of being a thinking self seems primary. Therefore, the answer to the question about whether the two modes of being are mutually exclusive might be that they are not mutually exclusive in theory but that in the everyday world they seem to be.

[sahyo]

:)

not sensation


the feeling of "being in the now"

[jsg]

Another approach to the apparent "now being/conceptual being" duality is suggested by the following quote from physicist David Bohm, whose concept of the universe as undivided flux parallels the Buddhist idea of emptiness:

"One may suppose that this deeper level of movement may be analysable into yet finer particles which will perhaps turn out to be the ultimate substance of the whole of reality. However, the notion that all is flux . . . denies such a supposition. Rather, it implies that any describable event, object, entity, etc., is an abstraction from an unknown and undefinable totality of flowing movement." -- Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980, p. 49

If one views the "undefinable totality of flowing movement" as tantamount to "suchness," then being in the now could be seen as the awareness of "any describable event, object, entity, etc." as an embodiment of suchness in the sense described in the Heart Sutra as, "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form." Being in the conceptual, on the other hand, could be regarded as viewing "any describable event, object, entity, etc." as independent of the context in which it occurs.

[sahyo]

any describable event, object, entity, etc." as an embodiment of suchness in the sense described in the Heart Sutra as, "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form."



"Form is emptiness and emptiness is form."
so what "entity" ?