I have a great deal of respect for any individual who engages in practice. FYI my practice is very different from the more common forms of engagement. It is a very aggressive even confrontational engagement with the processes summed up by Dogen as "I generation and extinction"
-
-
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
My experience with this coming and going of presence has in many ways left me the odd man out. Do not even know how to ask meaningful questions. Here is a hesitant question. Do you see the movement of thought as it rises from the foundation blooming and becoming?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
Is the ability to follow multiple thought streams an aberration or a skill? IE engage in a internal chant and visualize an image simultaneously. If skill what to do with it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
Existence requires engagement. Is it possible to exist without a self? Does ones Buddha nature itself, constitute a self? I wonder if when you are reading following the words you have observed the moment when imagination comes into the process? 2 streams 1 verbal 1 visual
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @memeristor
Flowers exist, conventionally. Do flowers have selves, ultimately? For Dōgen, impermanence is Buddha nature. Multiple streams of impermanence converge. Water is wet. Who are you?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Flowers are perfectly self conscious within the domain of their physicality. Remember I accept panpsyhism as reasonable. Commonly I am attention in either a passive or active relationship to sense and previously registered impressions Essentially a bit more then a reactive self
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @memeristor
They may be self-conscious, but are they conscious of a *metaphysically substantial, enduring self*?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX @memeristor
Moreover, are "you" conscious of a *metaphysically substantial, enduring self*?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Need to sit with that question for awhile if not a long while.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
"metaphysically substantial, enduring self" Would you be so kind as to rephrase the above. Reading "Aquinas: Metaphysics" Generally it is my position that matter and energy represent one and the same thing. As to enduring self everything is in movement constantly changing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Substantial in the sense alluded to in the earlier distinction between substance metaphysics and process metaphysics. Enduring (permanent, fixed, unchanging) as opposed to impermanent. Metaphysically substantial, enduring self = some-"thing" bearing fixed identity across time.
-
-
Replying to @NoaidiX @memeristor
If some-"thing" is in process of arising/ceasing or is in movement, constantly changing, then it bears no identity over time and cannot be rightfully called a "self" in any ultimate capacity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.