Rebirth

"And thus far, as far as I know, belief has proven far more problematic than vision in managing to sketch out some kind of non-folk account. Indeed, though it's hard to wrap one's head around, it's quite possible, given a brain which has thus far refused to give up any data at all about what ideas might look like to any observation of any kind, that there is no such thing as ideas at all. It's quite possible that ideas exist as much in the observable world as luminiferous ether or the four humours—diagnostic concepts that make perfect sense in the absence of contradictory data and yet have been abandoned because they don't actually obtain in the observable world. It's possible; not something one can be certain of yet, but possible." -Crux

You and I have a very different definition of functional, I think.

When you say that there is potentially "no such thing as ideas at all," you're talking about ontology. If ideas exists, how do they exist? Am I right?

Personally, I could care less about ontology. Or rather, I could call my position a-ontological, or even one of ontological relativism. I'm not a materialist.

I see mental/cognitive events as ways of relating. I don't really care where or how they are stored. The folk idea that someone "holds a belief" is just a way of saying they demonstrate a way of relating events in certain ways.

To understand belief, we have to look at language itself. Belief, for me, is a particular way of relating both to direct environmental contingencies AND to/with other verbal relations.

Networks of relations (i.e. ways-of-relating) regulate behavior when they are framed-relationally with a verbal context of literality (yet another way of relating). And this is when believing becomes problematic - when it dominates one's repertoire of responses by restricting it.

All this to say that the reason we are talking past each other, I think, is because we have very different assumptions about what is and is not important to know about "belief". I don't think it's all that helpful to know if there's a "belief center," because that doesn't really change the way it operates. Sure, there are physical and neurological correlates supporting verbal relations, but that doesn't mean the mechanism is necessarily material.

Again, we're probably talking past each other. I'm sorry if I'm mischaracterizing your view. I in no way intend to invalidate your opinion or insult your intelligence. You are obviously very intelligent, Crux; more so than me, I have no doubt.

Chris, Do you think it is possible reach a level of experience where all beliefs are thrown aside? Then, when this experience is articulated, an accepted belief system is utilized? I think again of how Meister Eckhart interprets his experience as opposed to, say, Dogen. I guess I am of the position that everyone can have a very similar spiritual experience at the core, but then this experience then gets filtered through a belief system.

I agree with Chris. That would be like somehow suggesting emptiness was other than form, and form other than emptiness.

So you feel that spiritual experiences are ultimately contextualized by cultural conditioning and belief systems, so that no two spiritual experiences are alike? I am not quite sure if this is an accurate understanding or not.

Good questions. As usual, it depends

In terms of the content of experience, it's difficult to conceive of two experiences being identical, whether between individuals or for the same individual (having one experience after another). And yes, I think all experience is contextually situated. Thus, the features and functions of experience will be affected by context, always. (These are my assumptions and biases. Don't take this as a claim of absolute knowledge.)

Now, Emptiness is a tricky subject. It's as if emptiness is the only assumption I can think of in which its context supports both its conceptual content AND any assumptions one might try to use in evaluation of it. I realize that was a mouthful!

Bascially, emptiness can be an assumption from which one frames their experience. Usually, one cannot evalutate an assumption using the same criteria by which the assumption evalutes something else. (I'm not saying this well, but it's basic logic.)

Emptiness seems to get around this. From emptiness as a perspective, I can demonstrate the emptiness of form. And, when emptiness comes under the scrutiny of emptiness, it turns out that emptiness is also empty. Imagine that!

So, how one realizes emptiness may be quite different from person to person, in terms of content. But some features of the context must be the same, because emptiness is utterly thorough in application. And because it is so thorough, realizing emptiness is quite literally realizing nothing and everything, without contradiction. Emptiness itself is the how and the way of the differences in experiential content.

Wow.

That really didn't make much sense, did it?

On a more day to day level (sorry, jackson! ) my personal experience has been that not all spiritual experiences are comprehensible across traditions/people. But some - such as the realization of emptiness - seem to be fairly comprehensible. By this I mean for example that when I read something written hundreds of years ago by a Christian mystic, I sometimes recognize experiences and understandings that person is describing as matching things I have understood or experienced. Likewise when I talk to others who have had similar realizations to my own, even if their backgrounds and vocabulary are somewhat different, there are points of understanding we can find.

ETA: I must add, this depends a bit on the individual's level of attachment to a particular belief system and exposure to the wider world, too. Some people are fairly dogmatic about their own tradition being different, better, special, etc. However, it's been my experience that the realization of emptiness tends to knock that particular wall loose quite a bit.

Think about it more mundanely, even. In many cases, when we travel to remote places, we can recognize most of the emotional communication we see. Some things might confuse us. But a happy smile, the tenderness of a mother to her infant, an aggressive argument between two people, the laughing of children playing a game - these things can be recognized. The game might be different, the language might be different, but we are all human beings with similar biology, and our experiences in life are only able to play out within the parameters of the senses, consciousness, and so on.

Am I missing the point? Always possible!

No need to be sorry, Ona! I spend a lot of time in my head, so it's nice of you to come in and bring the conversation back to earth.

I know I sound like a broken record by now; but, I think the reason individuals from different cultural backgrounds are able to recognize and understand certain basic experiences and expressions (laughter, sadness, anger, etc.), is because they arise in a similar context. Having a human body and mind are included in context, and so is having relationships with others, and so on.

Some features are more stable than others. And, those experiences which are common to the more stable features of our shared human situation are one's we are most likely to share on a deep, experiential level... or so I suppose.

I think I see what you are saying. It generates some questions.

"So, how one realizes emptiness may be quite different from person to person, in terms of content." - Jackson

Does an experience of emptiness have content though? Or is it dependent on the type of content? That seems dualistic.

"Bascially, emptiness can be an assumption from which one frames their experience..."

"From emptiness as a perspective, I can demonstrate the emptiness of form..." - Jackson

Is emptiness an assumption or a perspective though? Doesn't the experience of emptiness radically--holistically--alter one's mode of being? Seems to go at it this way is one-sided, leaning towards the mental aspect.



"Emptiness itself is the how and the way of the differences in experiential content." - Jackson



I see what you are getting at here. But it seems as though realizing emptiness in this way is not true emptiness as it depends on the content through which emptiness is realized. It seems as though a person who realized emptiness at this level could go at least one step deeper to realize exactly what you are saying here.

Hmm, maybe I don't quite understand what you are getting at. haha!

"Does an experience of emptiness have content though? Or is it dependent on the type of content? That seems dualistic." -Jake2

There can be content or no content. It is neither dependent on content, nor necessarily independent of content. This is why it can't be dualistic. For, to place emptiness as though it were some-thing independent of content presuposes duality. To summarize Nagaruna: not one, not the other, not both, not neither, etc.

Not one. Not two. Not three. A thorough cut, severing ties to both unity and division.

Perplexed; your cat jumps on to your lap... that!

"Is emptiness an assumption or a perspective though? Doesn't the experience of emptiness radically--holistically--alter one's mode of being? Seems to go at it this way is one-sided, leaning towards the mental aspect." -Jake2

Assumption and perspectives are empty, too.

It's only leaning toward the mental aspect when one has no experiential referent; something to taste right here and now.

"What part are you insure of? How does it matter?" - Chris



Chris, I wasn't quite sure if that was an accurate elucidation of your point.



"There can be content or no content. It is neither dependent on content, nor necessarily independent of content. This is why it can't be dualistic." - Jackson

That's how I feel. But when you said, "So, how one realizes emptiness may be quite different from person to person, in terms of content" it sounded dualistic to me.

The content can be different because all content is empty. All experience is empty. No dualism there.

"Does an experience of emptiness have content though?" - sunyata

I think that's a fascinating question. Technically, it seems to me, one of the characteristics of directly (not intellectually) apprehending emptiness is that you are not experiencing something through the traditional ego channel. Awareness is self-aware, experience self-experiences. It is that bypassing of the familiar way of perceiving that makes the "perception" of emptiness so bizarre at first (in my experience, at least). I recall a sort of astonishment at how the senses (sight, sound, but even perception itself) seemed to have a luminous, radiant, drifting quality, a strange aspect that I could not really describe. Nothing "looked" different, and yet it was radically strange. It wasn't like hallucinating. It seems as if everything is just manifesting, unfolding, alive and vibrant, but again, not in any kind of altered state way, and it applies to thoughts, sensations, feelings, perceptions of every kind, the act of perceiving, etc. not just vision or something like that. There's a pervasive ineffable quality everywhere, deep and boundless and silent and yet radiant and aware. It's all God, in a religious sense.

Anyway, that's my best hack at an experiential side of things. It seems to be similar for at least a few people I know; others I've never discussed it with, so I have no idea.

Can I just say that I sometimes think the conversations on this thread get so intellectual, and so not about real-world experience, that they make my head spin. Then again, I have a bias for practical real world experience over technicalities. Love ya'll anyway. Hugs, Ona

Reality check (for me): I think all my ideas, thoughts, beliefs (!), concepts, feelings, etc. about "emptiness" are all about after apprehending it and then thinking about it later as a memory. And, thus, none of it really has anything to do with empitness itself. (even though I can, then, apprehend the emptiness of all the thoughts, concepts, feelings).

Does this seem right? Does anyone relate?

"Can I just say that I sometimes think the conversations on this thread get so intellectual, and so not about real-world experience, that they make my head spin." -- Ona

Ah, thanks. My work here is done.

[image]


-cmarti

ha ha. i'll go put the spinning music on:

God, those hair styles need to come back. Tired of the flat, short, conservative stuff.

Mike, that makes sense. Recollecting an experience of apprehending emptiness can be different than simply realizing emptiness in any given moment... but there is the possibility of realizing emptiness in a moment of recalling a past experience.

The distinction gets more and more difficult to place, the more natural wakefulness stabilizes. A lot of the time, just remembering to be awake is all it takes.

"The content can be different because all content is empty. All experience is empty. No dualism there." - Jackson

"The content is different between any two or more observers, by
definition. No two observers can share an identical object, just as no
two observers can share an identical perspective or view. This is not
dualistic because no matter what is seen or who sees it, this object and
that object are empty by definition." - Chris

I see an error I made here. I was equating content with object. But I see how content does not necessarily have to be an object, that is, it is empty by definition, just like the observer. So herein is the non-dual awareness.

The problem here is that I maintain an image of emptiness because I haven't had a taste of it yet. It's all in my imagination.