[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Religion and philosophy can be nice placeholders to point to or be representative of truths, but at some point, non-conceptual reality and "what is" is lived. Truth itself is the pointer. Exploring and living beyond the conceptual. Once one gets serious, and lives what the religion or philosophy pointed to, the pointing is not only not necessary, it is, in fact conceptual and keeps one living from and with the wrong reference point.

That's right. Buddhist philosophy merges the intellectual and practical component. Religion is irrelevant with respect to dhamma which universally applies to everyone regardless of their religion, tradition and what have you. I think religion is like a charade of costumes, symbols, repetition and icons, all of which are unimportant where dhamma is concerned. Hence it makes no difference what religion a person is, or isn't, and even a Buddhist can practice dhamma.

All of us who have been into things like Buddhism and philosophy a long time will notice they still react to various things in negative ways. Why is that? Well it's simple. We are still in the thought stream way too much, way too often, having it be our point of reference as we encounter and experience what is "out there." Really the thought stream is not "out there" at all. It is manufactured reality within us. Optional reality. Our attention does not have to be on it at anytime. It does not have to be experienced. But that takes commitment and self discipline and staying aware.

Yea, it isn't to be perfect, it's just to understand - in Buddhist terms - 'the cause'. It is hard, requires all of attention.

Speaking about this is not conceptual if we are aware of the non-attached state while we speak, and listen. But then if one is in a non-conceptual state, what interest is there in a description or pointing to it? None. Posts like this are meaningless. Empty words. As all words are empty. The now free of words and concepts is what is lived and held as the most preferred way to be.

I was going to say, things like the "two truths" are non-sense, but that depends. In conceptual living, we make things whatever we want, using language and thought. So someone could easily make such concepts into the most important holy thing and it would be to them. And the word "non-sense" is meaningless in itself. Adding interpretations to things in the thought stream is delusional, as the interpretations are also the thought stream.

The observer is the observed..... the same thing. The thinker is thought.

Well,to make the claim the observer is the observed seem like a truth statement, but it's actually like the subject of an indepth discussion and isn't like the 'right answer' or anything like that. There is not conclusion for the mind to grasp as knowledge, there's really only the truth: 'this is how it is' as it is experienced, in the way it is experienced by you. The only question is, are you paying attention.


In the Buddhist philosophy there are dependent origins, which basically means the experience materialises momentarily as consciousness with the senses and objects, not as a separate enduring self experiencing passing things, but a similtaneous, momentary arising of consciousness, but there a that which was never born and never dies beyond that, which is always a mystery and has no answers.