Dependent origination

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

Heh. You do not have to imagine anything.

You do not have to get rid of space in order to see form.
You do not have to get rid of form in order to see space.

You can "see/live/perceive/experience" this moment without any words or ideas about it. It's actually better without the mental stuff, words etc.

This now, empty, just is. Ideas like space and form have no place in non-conceptual based experience. I don't try to define what this is by looking in ideas.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

I think I first heard about that idea from Eckhart Tolle. He was talking about how someone could be angry about something, then this angry person goes to a friend and tells them about what they are mad about, then the friend gets angry too. Tolle was talking about this angry feeling as being an energy field we feed with our attention to it and then we can also spread it to others.

On those reality tv shows, the housewives of wherever, where you have 10 of them all sitting around a dinner table all getting worked up together at something or someone they are mad about. Maybe some person makes you mad, then you call a friend up on the phone and get them mad at the person too. You are spreading the anger energy like an infectious virus.

It's like we are this blob of swirling light for example. This energy field, or soul, or whatever we call it. Maybe it's colors are blue, or white, or green, a mix right. Our "aura" the edges of this "soul" or "conscious energy" some psychics claim to be able to see or read. I met a psychic once who could see aura's and she was always making comments about people's aura's, like "wow that persons aura fills the room," or "ah no wonder they carry drama muted orange light coming off them." But Tolle's general idea seemed to be things like "anger" are energies, like blobs of an actual something, we can invite into our natural energy field and enter into like a "marriage" with them. We feed them, make them stronger, spread them and on and on. They are actual existing energies that we can make grow or feed and make a part of us. Or we can starve them, not feed them, not give them our attention, so they then leave us to wait for somebody else to call upon them to make a part of them.

These ideas would then relate to "rebirth" as if we have these various negative energies attached to us when we leave the body, it sets up a need to reincarnate (or karma) to further deal with them. To eventually purge our willful association with them.

I haven't heard ET talking about energy but I can agree with what you Posted that he had said.

I feel energy everywhere, in various strengths. Sometimes I have to leave certain places when the energy makes me feel physically ill. I can walk into a room and immediately feel the energy of others, if it's negative I have to leave but if it's positive then it feels like being wrapped in cotton wool
The worst place I have visited which literally knocked me off my feet is Stonehenge in the UK. I have never felt anything like it before. I stopped in my tracks and waited as I really wanted to visit the Stones, after I stepped over a barrier that I could feel everything was different like I'd stepped into another atmosphere. What I had picked up there in a certain area was not a nice experience and when I left the area I went a different way....
I definitely understand what ET is talking about.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by sky123

The worst place I have visited which literally knocked me off my feet is Stonehenge in the UK. I have never felt anything like it before. I stopped in my tracks and waited as I really wanted to visit the Stones, after I stepped over a barrier that I could feel everything was different like I'd stepped into another atmosphere. What I had picked up there in a certain area was not a nice experience and when I left the area I went a different way....

How interesting …

And good. Then I don’t have to try to explain the reality of ‘energy-fields-what-is’ in their ‘as-it-is-ness’ to you.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

Here we really do run into cultural differences.
I posted this before – trying to explain it …. ‘Space and objects’ from 2:50 to 3:55:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoDtoB9Abck

When - from early childhood you learn not to look at objects only (or directly), but instead or rather - to see them within their spatial energy-fields and in fact considering this field to be more important perceptually to understand “what is” …….. “as it is” is seen from a different perspective.

It only means to see it as it is, as you experience it yourself.

“Objects made from Qi are always closely related to the surrounding Qi”.

When I ‘read’ a person, (not conceptualizing i.e. not knowing) “what is” - irl – my empty inner space ‘reads or listens’ their fields “as it is” to know “what is”.…..

*

Now the question remains – is the Buddhist view Western or Eastern in regards to Space and Objects?

If it is Western – so be it.
If it is Eastern – then why superimpose the Western definition-filter or mode of perception upon it?

*

The 'dhamma' is universal. that is, dhamma applies to everyone because that's the way the universe works. Hence, if you are Western, it's going to be the same as if you are Eastern. If you are a Master it's going to be same is if you are a novice. For example, if we have a room full of people from all the different cultural backgrounds, it's the same, 'feel your breath coming in going out'.

The irony of the religion is, when it becomes sectarian it is no longer dhamma. This is why I agree 'why superimpose Western filters", or Eastern filters for that matter, or indeed, an individual filter? Just be aware of what's going on as you perceive it in the way it is for you. No one know what 'it really is', but you can know 'what it's like' as it is for you simply by ceasing to generate 'views' and noticing 'how it is'.

I'm not saying it's special or anything - I'm just saying it is this way and I'm aware.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

Can't argue with Chogyam Trungpa's teachings IME, nor the Zen masters.

I would against with Chogyam because he was involved in activities that can only be seen as unethical, and all nature of abuse was perpetrated through his organisation, so even if the words he said sound profound, what was he actually teaching in his schools?



As for zen masters, I would not put any of them on a pedestal. I would have to meet the man, get to know him, and see if he's a trustworthy bloke not by the wise old things he says, but depending if he's truthful, kind, and walks the talk - and even then I'd listen to him just as I listen to any common man.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

I would against with Chogyam because he was involved in activities that can only be seen as unethical, and all nature of abuse was perpetrated through his organisation, so even if the words he said sound profound, what was he actually teaching in his schools?



As for zen masters, I would not put any of them on a pedestal. I would have to meet the man, get to know him, and see if he's a trustworthy bloke not by the wise old things he says, but depending if he's truthful, kind, and walks the talk - and even then I'd listen to him just as I listen to any common man.

That’s very sound advice. I personally am a face to face person, or I like to get a ‘feel’ for a person and that tells me a lot. I trust my feelings and intuition about people well before things come out of their mouths.

It’s so easy to get ‘caught up’ in those who you ‘think’ know things that sound spiritual and all. Even teachings that point to truth mean nothing when one is projecting their own self not walking its own talk as you mentioned. People who are most vulnerable who latch on to the guru and his words, end up entangled in the lot. And even wise, smart people can be unaware of their issues projecting until they surface. So I would add, sometimes it can be genuinely unknown until the subconscious is made conscious.

Most of us as children, are conditioned by the hidden and unspoken, the underlying containment saturates and filters through everything modelled to us. Knowing this, all spiritual seekers would be wise to consider their moves with others who have positions of power over others. The containment and entanglements from early foundational years becomes a breeding ground for vulnerable people who have formed unhealthy attachments, which then plays out later on in ways that people really need to be aware of.

[running]

Originally Posted by sky123

I haven't heard ET talking about energy but I can agree with what you Posted that he had said.

I feel energy everywhere, in various strengths. Sometimes I have to leave certain places when the energy makes me feel physically ill. I can walk into a room and immediately feel the energy of others, if it's negative I have to leave but if it's positive then it feels like being wrapped in cotton wool
The worst place I have visited which literally knocked me off my feet is Stonehenge in the UK. I have never felt anything like it before. I stopped in my tracks and waited as I really wanted to visit the Stones, after I stepped over a barrier that I could feel everything was different like I'd stepped into another atmosphere. What I had picked up there in a certain area was not a nice experience and when I left the area I went a different way....
I definitely understand what ET is talking about.

perhaps you had a bad experience at the location. feeling your past.

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

I would against with Chogyam because he was involved in activities that can only be seen as unethical, and all nature of abuse was perpetrated through his organisation, so even if the words he said sound profound, what was he actually teaching in his schools?



As for zen masters, I would not put any of them on a pedestal. I would have to meet the man, get to know him, and see if he's a trustworthy bloke not by the wise old things he says, but depending if he's truthful, kind, and walks the talk - and even then I'd listen to him just as I listen to any common man.

never put anyone on a pedestal. assume everyone puts their pants on the same way. be a sponge to what is helpful. ignore the rest. this is how i go about life which also includes being around spiritual teachers. been working for me thus far.

[sentient]

Ok. Now I’m probably going to get everyone up in arms about this, but of course imo the difference between how West vs. East or how White vs. Aboriginal perceive is important.

As I see it (from my indigenous perspective) Westerners have the greatest difficulty getting past the first skandha.

Westerners are so focused on forms that they totally ignore space i.e. space is not incorporated/included in perception. And Westerners take this so for granted as “What Is” or as “as-it-is” that they endlessly insists on the sameness (of perception) for everybody.

But this ignorance of space is like asking a fish: “How’s the water?” And the fish will reply: ”What is water?”

Well …. how is the rest of the dharma going to open up – if one does not get past the first skandha?
When people even see themselves as a 'form thing' – separately, independently existing from space ….

I think (or if I remember right), one of the first milestones in realizing Shunyata is that one discovers that there is no boundary between inner and outer space.

And it is then and only then, that one will start to penetrate the dual wall.

*

[Phaelyn]

We can't know how another is perceiving, but we can see how much love they carry inwardly and outwardly. Those who love all unconditionally, selflessly, full of compassion and empathy, have the highest perception.

There is no duality in one who runs into a burning building to save another or in a parent who stays up all night holding a sick child's hand.
Unselfish love ends duality and boundaries.