be in touch with unseen nature - Andrew PK Yap
-
On the aspect of grounding to reality, you did a great job. It is also good to stress on taking up personality and be this or that, in reality nothing can be deviated, not even for a moment. Nevertheless, an innocent and sincere mind to share one's experience is most crucial for all practitioners, not to take it to heart.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and recognising also that some people that claim to be in front of you are in reality, way behind or not even walking the same path! -
Originally posted by Thusness: On the aspect of grounding to reality, you did a great job. It is also good to stress on taking up personality and be this or that, in reality nothing can be deviated, not even for a moment. Nevertheless, an innocent and sincere mind to share one's experience is most crucial for all practitioners, not to take it to heart.
I am therefore "I say" and I can say or explain because "I understand". I understand because I am.
"I understand" does not mean that "I am".
That is to say, I can "say" and explain all I want and help another to understand, but even if the other person understands it, he is still not "it".
He cannot say "I am"; he can only say "I understand". For another person to come to the point where he will be able to say ""I am", I do not just understand"; he needs to practice.
This is crucial for practitioners to know. In other words, the knowledge must transform you or it will forever be head knowledge. The internet is good when in your practice, you encounter questions. The answers that make sense, you will be to use to help you in your practice. You still need to practice. -
The pure sense of existence, that "I AM", though vividly clear relates only to the thought realm. This is what I can say for now. Happy journey.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am therefore "I say" and I can say or explain because "I understand". I understand because I am.
"I understand" does not mean that "I am".
That is to say, I can "say" and explain all I want and help another to understand, but even if the other person understands it, he is still not "it".
He cannot say "I am"; he can only say "I understand". For another person to come to the point where he will be able to say ""I am", I do not just understand"; he needs to practice.
This is crucial for practitioners to know. In other words, the knowledge must transform you or it will forever be head knowledge. The internet is good when in your practice, you encounter questions. The answers that make sense, you will be to use to help you in your practice. You still need to practice. -
What do you mean by "ground yourself in reality"?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Like I said earlier, if you do not ground yourself in "reality" that is insanity. The guiding principle is to always ground yourself in reality. -
Found something interesting: http://zen.extra.hu/ddgl.html
[Comment: Tsung Mi comments on this:6
By practicing these four observations, four defects can be avoided.
The first observation of reducing all forms into Voidness [can] free [us] from the defect of accretion.
The second observation of identifying Voidness with form [can] free [us] from the defects of both accretion and reduction.
The third observation of the Non-Obstruction of form and Voidness stresses the negation of both being and non-being, thus it [can] free [us] from the defect of all playwords.
In the fourth observation of absolute dissolution and non-attachment, even the concept of the unity of both form and Voidness is negated, thus it can free [us] from the defect of all contradictions.
When these four defects are eschewed, the hundred flaws and mistakes will [automatically] disappear. This is indeed the essence of the eight collections of Prajnaparamita; scriptures and the consummation of all teachings in the Great Vehicle.] -
No offence,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am therefore "I say" and I can say or explain because "I understand". I understand because I am.
"I understand" does not mean that "I am".
That is to say, I can "say" and explain all I want and help another to understand, but even if the other person understands it, he is still not "it".
He cannot say "I am"; he can only say "I understand". For another person to come to the point where he will be able to say ""I am", I do not just understand"; he needs to practice.
This is crucial for practitioners to know. In other words, the knowledge must transform you or it will forever be head knowledge. The internet is good when in your practice, you encounter questions. The answers that make sense, you will be to use to help you in your practice. You still need to practice.
you have overestimated yourself.
This kind of arrogance already show that you are not there yet. -
Originally posted by longchen:No offence,
you have overestimated yourself.
This kind of arrogance already show that you are not there yet.
No comments. -
You have to get the "thought realm" first IMHO. Otherwise you are just "bur".Originally posted by Thusness:The pure sense of existence, that "I AM", though vividly clear relates only to the thought realm. This is what I can say for now. Happy journey.
>AEN: When I say "grounded in reality" I mean this, getting it right in the "thought realm" or whatever you want to call it. You have to get it right in this relative reality (see what you have done? making me talk about Relative Reality as if it is a separate entity); if it does not make sense in this reality, then it does not make sense. It is not two entity! -
When I say "otherwise you are just "blur"; I don't mean "you". I mean generally! Maybe this is why people say I am arrogant. Please don't take everything I write personally!
-
Hi,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You have to get the "thought realm" first IMHO. Otherwise you are just "bur".
>AEN: When I say "grounded in reality" I mean this, getting it right in the "thought realm" or whatever you want to call it. You have to get it right in this relative reality (see what you have done? making me talk about Relative Reality as if it is a separate entity); if it does not make sense in this reality, then it does not make sense. It is not two entity!
is there a possibility that u don't understand what AEN postings on dharma as the content is too profound for the perceivers ?
MmM U don't see a "grounded sense of reality" in some of his posts? -
No worries.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When I say "otherwise you are just "blur"; I don't mean "you". I mean generally! Maybe this is why people say I am arrogant. Please don't take everything I write personally! -
I think you have to go back to the earlier posts and see why the phrase "grounded sense of reality" came up. To say that it was because AEN's posts are "too profound for the perceivers" is a little misleading.Originally posted by Isis:Hi,
is there a possibility that u don't understand what AEN postings on dharma as the content is too profound for the perceivers ?
MmM U don't see a "grounded sense of reality" in some of his posts? -
Does that mean understanding emptiness in the level of concepts or what..?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You have to get the "thought realm" first IMHO. Otherwise you are just "bur".
>AEN: When I say "grounded in reality" I mean this, getting it right in the "thought realm" or whatever you want to call it. You have to get it right in this relative reality (see what you have done? making me talk about Relative Reality as if it is a separate entity); if it does not make sense in this reality, then it does not make sense. It is not two entity!
Relative Reality is not two? Can you give an example? -
"understanding emptiness in the level of concepts" ... do you see the duality in this statement?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Does that mean understanding emptiness in the level of concepts or what..?
Relative Reality is not two? Can you give an example? -
You mean emptiness and concepts are not two, not one..?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:"understanding emptiness in the level of concepts" ... do you see the duality in this statement?
Then how is emptiness = form?
-
Not concepts and "Emptiness"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You mean emptiness and concepts are not two, not one..?
Then how is emptiness = form?
When you ask about concepts. What is the opposite of concepts to you? -
To make it easier for you:
Emptiness is a "concept"
No Emptiness is not a concept
Emptiness is " ? "
Duality or multiplicity of "?" and Concept -
I still don't get it.. don't confuse all of usOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:To make it easier for you:
Emptiness is a "concept"
No Emptiness is not a concept
Emptiness is " ? "
Duality or multiplicity of "?" and Concept
When has emptiness become like that? Emptiness means empty of inherent existence (and non-existence, both, and neither).. -
it means dont think isnt it, andrew is practising and AEN is thinking
-
You are so attached to the label EMPTINESS that you are blinded.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I still don't get it.. don't confuse all of us
When has emptiness become like that? Emptiness means empty of inherent existence (and non-existence, both, and neither).. Cut and paste, cut and paste is useless if you do not understand first, than realise what you cut and paste! -
I think he is just under lots of stress recently
-
Who? Me? Strangely I did not feel concerned at all with my O levels these few daysOriginally posted by Eric Cartman:I think he is just under stress recently Was practising and calm even on the journey to school 
-
First of all I don't cut and paste... secondly I understand what I am saying but I do not understand what you are sayingOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are so attached to the label EMPTINESS that you are blinded. Cut and paste, cut and paste is useless if you do not understand first, than realise what you cut and paste! -
You really were waiting for 'O' results?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:First of all I don't cut and paste... secondly I understand what I am saying but I do not understand what you are saying
To make it easier for you:
Emptiness is a "concept"
No Emptiness is not a concept
Emptiness is " ? "
Duality or multiplicity of "?" and Concept
===========
This might help you understand.
If not a concept then Emptiness is " ? "
What is "?" -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Yep... got my results just now.
You really were waiting for 'O' results?To make it easier for you:
Emptiness is actually not a concept, but it is truth. The truth is all things are empty of inherent existence, non existence, both and neither. Concepts are also empty of inherent existence, non existence, both and neither. Even emptiness is empty of inherent existence, non existence, both and neither.
Emptiness is a "concept"
No Emptiness is not a concept
Emptiness is " ? "
Duality or multiplicity of "?" and Concept
No Emptiness means non existence of emptiness? This is also an illusion, for emptiness is also empty of inherent existence, non existence, both and neither.
Emptiness is "?" You mean not knowing? I have just explained in the other thread that grasping on not knowing is still a subtle form of knowingness. Is knowing and not knowing two or one or neither?===========
This might help you understand.
If not a concept then Emptiness is " ? "
What is "?"