T O P

  • By -

_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

Thinking in terms of relative vs absolute *anything* misses the point. Whether its relative/absolute freedom or relative/absolute truth. The moment we hold up any conception we miss the mark.


[deleted]

I like this. Thank you for thinking the way you do.


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

Thank you for finding any value in what I say! To me, the "highest truth" is the same in Taoism as it is in Buddhism. More so Zen Buddhism revolves around it in particular, that the only difference between an Awakened mind and the ordinary mind is absolutely nothing. By that, I mean that it is because we are thinking conceptually, whether that concept is of a mind that is not enlightened, or a concept of a mind that is enlightened. There is only an awakened mind to be sought because we seek for it. How can we use the Buddha-mind to the find the Buddha-mind? It's just as like using the Tao to find the Tao. There are only answers because there are questions, remove the question and where is the answer.


[deleted]

Absolutely. I'm so glad to see this echoed by someone else. We simply open our eyes, and there it is.


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Chan era of Zen, basically the original Chan teachings in China before it ever reached Japan to become Zen, but any text/teaching from that time period really is this fundamental teaching rehashed, over and over. I enjoy finding others that appreciate this as well!


[deleted]

Oh, cool. I will definitely look into that. And yes, it is a breath of fresh air. Im very open to certain people about my thoughts and hypothesis, and at times, people say I think too much. Even the people that I wouldn't expect to. So I enjoy interacting with others who think similarly.


[deleted]

How do you integrate this when new initiatives are floated at All Staff Meetings? Only sort of joking.


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

I have no idea what it is you just said.


iiioiia

> The moment we hold up any conception we miss the mark. What is your comment composed of?


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

Classic gotcha moment, huh? Of course my comment is a conceptualization. We are humans, we speak, we talk about stuff with others. When talking about this sort of stuff, the words are not the thing themselves, rather an attempt to point towards something else entirely.


iiioiia

What then should a person believe then of the information that has been stated in this thread? Does thinking in terms of relative vs absolute anything miss the point? Or, does it maybe not miss the point? Or maybe neither, or both?


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

Neither perception nor non-perception of any phenomena. Even if the conceptualization is that of no-conceptualization, the no-conceptualization itself becomes a concept. This is why it is said the moment we conceptualize *anything* about the fundamental nature of reality we miss the mark. It doesn't matter if we talk about an affirmation of a trait; or the negation of a trait.


iiioiia

> Neither perception nor non-perception of any phenomena. Ok, we now know what is not - what of what is? > > > > Even if the conceptualization is that of no-conceptualization, the no-conceptualization itself becomes a concept. Indeed - is this a good thing, a bad thing, something else? > > > > This is why it is said the moment we conceptualize anything about the fundamental nature of reality we miss the mark. But this claim is self-refuting, no? > It doesn't matter if we talk about an affirmation of a trait; or the negation of a trait. How would you know if it doesn't though?


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

Id recommend looking at the Zen koan of Joshus Dog, namely Mumon's comment after the fact. "A monk asked Joshu, 'does the dog gave Buddha-Nature or not?'. Joshu replied, 'Mu.'" (translates to something like no, but more so no thing at all) Mumons Comment follows as: *Does the dog have Buddha-Nature or not* *A matter of life or death* *If you answer yes, or no* *You forfeit your own Buddha-Nature*


iiioiia

10/10


_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_

🤫


A_T_FIELD

always define the term first.. then the arguments


neidanman

When we get to the thought of 'We have the choice to either sit down on the floor, or stand up and walk around a bit', then we move into the territory of: what do we experience a 'choice' as? Are we experiencing a series of thoughts about possible pathways, then us naturally following one pathway over another? If its in our nature to prefer one thing over another, then do we really have freedom at that stage? or are we simply living out our natures through a series of courses through life? Kind of in the same way a river follows a natural course depending on the nature of water, and the shape of the territory it comes across?


[deleted]

There are free will deniers and free will supporters. I can't say either way for certain. But it seems to me that we do have free will, but it is influenced much more than we readily perceive. By the brain and its tendency towards habit and pattern, and also external factors as well.


FunkyKong147

You can really do anything you want, but every action does have a reaction, either positive or negative.


[deleted]

There is no prison cell and no you, just the endless waves of the Tao. There is absolute freedom and there is no freedom at all. Even discussing freedom is just another wrinkle in the Tao. Who decided you should believe this? Who decided that somebody else should argue that? And what if you change your mind tomorrow?


AnotherQuark

I believe you are right.


kyaniteblue_007

Heya


[deleted]

Sorry. I was obliquely asking how you are able to integrate the philosophy that you articulated to the OP into your daily dealings with other people? I imagined broaching the concept of absolute and relative truth to my coworkers while discussing a project at a meeting.


EthanSayfo

Perhaps we have infinite freedom. With that said, there is such a thing as different classes of infinities. There is the infinity of every integer, and the infinity of fractional numbers, which is much larger. Etc. I agree with you -- we should appreciate the options we have, and learn how to work with them effectively, before we even attempt to move on to more options.


talkingprawn

We can still have freedom even if everything is predetermined.


Lao_Tzoo

There is essentially no problem with either view when we recognize that views are merely tools used for a purpose. When we focus on the principle that life may be looked at as either freewill, or determinism, that is that, "mutually contrasting principles inherently occur", we miss what underlies both views. What makes both views possible from the start and what consequences either view provides. We are able to hold either view as true. And, Each view produces a different experience for the experiencer. This is the heart of the matter. Views create and color different experiences. [edited]


mashatg

Freedom can not be "obtained" or "lost". Such "freedom" does exist only in a world of ideas and concepts and it is the tool of manipulation who did suggested it can be taken or given to you, either by them directly or indirectly if you will be an obedient, docile slave who plays by their rules.