Dependent origination

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Actually names for things don't exist until humans create them. This is related to dependent origination. Humans invent words, symbols for things, then can "perceive" such things mentally. It's not a direct perception as Buddhism says. Like if one was in the USA and said, "I am in America" this is purely human conceptualization. Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian navigator, gave the name "Americas" to these land bases. Before then, these lands were known as something else, to the people's living in them or aware of their existence. In the same way, the United States of America did not exist until that name was created and attached to something. The land exists, but what it is conceptualized as, changes according to the people who claim it at some particular time in history.

So prior to Amerigo Vespucci discovering something that existed before he was born, the land now named America after Amerigo, this land was not America. It was just land or understood as something else to someone here or who knew about it like I said. "America" did not exist until Amerigo Vespucci created that concept. Really humans just claim ownership of land, name it this or that, then eventually die and the land is claimed by other people, really all of these divisions are just human conceptualization. Mental concepts we are are taught to accept and live by. In theory, some army could come to the land known as America, fight a war for it, win the war then name this land something else. Then people would say, America got wiped out in a war, but the land would still exist, it just would not be known as America anymore.

Buddhism is teaching to be free of these mentally created concepts and to experience and perceive without such things.


It could not be related to a name that did not exist. Humans point to things and think, that is this.... That is a apple. But apple is a human created reality. A mental symbol or word for something else. Like I can say, I am Mary. But again, "Mary" is a conceptual mental image. It is agreed upon human conceptual realty. We all agree a certain kind of fruit that grows on a certain kind of tree is an apple. But mental images are not what they represent. Enlightenment or Buddhism, is asking us to perceive directly, not through the mind and mental interpretations. To live in this world relating to what exists directly, as it is, without our mental conceptual interpretations.

I’d posit that your articulation of Buddhist practice is quite shallow, based on what you write here. Not without irony are you trying to put a concept on top of everything, and in some ways the logic is convoluted, quite possibly because trying to imagine no concepts is different to those that may live it.

Furthermore, it sounds quite one sided. Claiming to have no words yet using every single word to muster the explanation and retort. Adepts know what is form, function, Dhamma, all in one.

In my opinion, there is no other way to truly win in this game except through practice. In that regard, you and others could take the example of Gem.

If it is merely to look good on a forum though, and convince oneself of their enlightenment, anyone can win that game, even the liars..

Jl

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Actually names for things don't exist until humans create them. This is related to dependent origination. Humans invent words, symbols for things, then can "perceive" such things mentally. It's not a direct perception as Buddhism says. Like if one was in the USA and said, "I am in America" this is purely human conceptualization. Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian navigator, gave the name "Americas" to these land bases. Before then, these lands were known as something else, to the people's living in them or aware of their existence. In the same way, the United States of America did not exist until that name was created and attached to something. The land exists, but what it is conceptualized as, changes according to the people who claim it at some particular time in history.

So prior to Amerigo Vespucci discovering something that existed before he was born, the land now named America after Amerigo, this land was not America. It was just land or understood as something else to someone here or who knew about it like I said. "America" did not exist until Amerigo Vespucci created that concept. Really humans just claim ownership of land, name it this or that, then eventually die and the land is claimed by other people, really all of these divisions are just human conceptualization. Mental concepts we are are taught to accept and live by. In theory, some army could come to the land known as America, fight a war for it, win the war then name this land something else. Then people would say, America got wiped out in a war, but the land would still exist, it just would not be known as America anymore.

Buddhism is teaching to be free of these mentally created concepts and to experience and perceive without such things.


It could not be related to a name that did not exist. Humans point to things and think, that is this.... That is a apple. But apple is a human created reality. A mental symbol or word for something else. Like I can say, I am Mary. But again, "Mary" is a conceptual mental image. It is agreed upon human conceptual realty. We all agree a certain kind of fruit that grows on a certain kind of tree is an apple. But mental images are not what they represent. Enlightenment or Buddhism, is asking us to perceive directly, not through the mind and mental interpretations. To live in this world relating to what exists directly, as it is, without our mental conceptual interpretations.

' Buddhism is teaching to be free of these mentally created concepts and to experience and perceive without such things.'


Exactly, so America existed before it was named

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Like I can say, I am Mary. But again, "Mary" is a conceptual mental image.

Mary has a meaning.
Mary= A tear.
(As found in Smith's Bible Dictionary, since the name Mary is Biblical)

So I can see that the name Mary comes from another place or event or essence.

So I can also see my own tears, of Joy and Sorrow.
Tears are a essence of true healing and release for myself.
What a beautiful name and Spirit it carries, even if some see it for only
a name.

I can see tears as a process of one seeing or finding themselves in their
core Being by the sweet letting go.
I am always content after letting go of tears, either Joyous or Sorrowful.

Even if Mary is not your name, I thank you for writing the name Mary.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by janielee

I’d posit that your articulation of Buddhist practice is quite shallow,

Yes true, all articulations are not Buddhist practice. But I'd say if one wanted to articulate better, closer to Buddhist practice, one needs to enter a clear state prior to articulating. I've done both and from my experience, entering a non-conceptual state then attempting to articulate Buddhism is a beautiful thing. So far I've seen no resistance to such articulation. But then no engagement either lol.

Originally Posted by janielee

If it is merely to look good on a forum though, and convince oneself of their enlightenment, anyone can win that game, even the liars..

I am enlightened as all are. So I guess it is how you are defining that word. As a goal (for ego in this conceptual interpretation) or as the base of what we are.

What is this then?, well an enlightened consciousness concentrating on the mentally created person and the content that references. There is perfect manifestation of enlightenment in each space between thoughts even there.

When my master and I were walking in the rain, he would say, "Do not walk so fast, the rain is everywhere."
— Shunryu Suzuki

[Phaelyn]

There is perhaps something about "depth" of realization or enlightenment but I'd point to somebody like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who wrote a piece of music at five years old. I assume he pursued music writing skills in many lifetimes which led to his ability to write at age five as Mozart. So we should never judge ourselves or others by how "enlightened we are." By how much time we choose to spend in the mental conceptual realm or out of it. It's a gradual process. One becomes aware of this other way to be, and over many life times one learns to prefer it due to more and more subtle discernment and awareness. In the end, it is about unconditional love and understanding, that is what enlightenment is, but it tends to be defined by some as a particular relationship in the totality of a being merged with a human body. But it is not that obviously as that is an idea. It is living love, both in expression and experience.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

There is perhaps something about "depth" of realization or enlightenment but I'd point to somebody like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who wrote a piece of music at five years old. I assume he pursued music writing skills in many lifetimes which led to his ability to write at age five as Mozart. So we should never judge ourselves or others by how "enlightened we are." By how much time we choose to spend in the mental conceptual realm or out of it. It's a gradual process. One becomes aware of this other way to be, and over many life times one learns to prefer it due to more and more subtle discernment and awareness. In the end, it is about unconditional love and understanding, that is what enlightenment is, but it tends to be defined by some as a particular relationship in the totality of a being merged with a human body. But it is not that obviously as that is an idea. It is living love, both in expression and experience.

' In a conversation with an aged brahmin, the Buddha once explained concisely what is meant by a Buddha, an enlightened one '

What has to be known, that I have known,
What has to be abandoned, that I have abandoned,
What has to be developed, that I have developed.

Therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sky123

' In a conversation with an aged brahmin, the Buddha once explained concisely what is meant by a Buddha, an enlightened one '

What has to be known, that I have known,
What has to be abandoned, that I have abandoned,
What has to be developed, that I have developed.

Therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.

Yes all the parts of the totality or whole. All working together. Converging in one moment. It's like teachings have their role, the interest is good, but then one can focus only on them, the concepts, so be seeking the non-conceptual in the conceptual. So then close the book, let go of ideas, be here now as it is, experience the wonder of the moment and yourself, free of all the mental thinking stuff. But it all has value, even the getting lost in words in a certain way. The words can point to the wordless.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Yes all the parts of the totality or whole. All working together. Converging in one moment. It's like teachings have their role, the interest is good, but then one can focus only on them, the concepts, so be seeking the non-conceptual in the conceptual. So then close the book, let go of ideas, be here now as it is, experience the wonder of the moment and yourself, free of all the mental thinking stuff. But it all has value, even the getting lost in words in a certain way. The words can point to the wordless.

Everything has value, even words....

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sky123

Everything has value, even words....

Up to us to discern what has the highest value in any given moment.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Up to us to discern what has the highest value in any given moment.

That's if you personally see values as Highest /Lowest. I prefer the ' Middle Way '