Re: Re: Solstice Labyrinth

[Guest guest]

> I got an inkling the other day that the fire was perhaps about the

> anger of the Goddess at being treated like an object ..

*Object??? NON-object is closer!

Hope you're all okay.

Love,

m

[Guest guest]

> Mike this use of the word object perhaps gets used differently by

> Buddhists & Advaitins. I wondered what you meant?

*Disdain.

> In Advaitin circles duality is described as being object referral

> consciousnesss whereby one seeks outside of one Self looking for one

> self. Kind like outside the subject. In this case even one's body is

> objectified as not self.

*Sure. Exactly. Even one's idea of presence. The Diamond Sutra

successively dissolves the ideas of a self, a persona, a mere being,

and a life.

> I know Buddhists do not use this word self & lately I am

> coming to an understanding why. Naked bald awareness cannot be called

> anything let alone a self. Ahh well we use words to communicate so we

> try to use them skillfully.

*Yep. And with mitigated success.

Nonetheless that naked bald awareness cannot even be called

naked bald awareness seems to me axiomatic (for all that

wonders where the clarity in that is). Names and terms obscure

inasmuch as they are clung to as being what one imagines is there.

All 'nouns' seem to immediately come complet with a qualifying

'adjective' and we immediately lose sight of the fact that what seem

to us to be 'nouns' are, in fact, only the becoming... only 'verbs'.

There ARE no 'nouns' - Not even 'non-being'. Things neither *are*

what they seem to be or not. Their seeming is all they have. And it's

as fleeting as one's (lack of) attention-span - if not even more so.

>

> I guess the advaitin implication of Self referral consciousness leads

> to an awareness of the interdependence of everything so that Mother

> Earth could not be objectified (not seen as just an object) but seen

> as part of one's own dear Self. This implies that Nature's

> intelligence is in all things. No thing is left out.

*The subtle shift of the Buddhist is simply that oneself - dear or

otherwise - is only ever an attachment to certain ideas. It can never

be found as such. It's only a - fairly useful, but ultimately non-

existant - working hypothesis... 'this' end of an infinite series of

relationships which themselves have no ultimate reality inasmuch

as they, too, are all relative to and dependent upon each other.

> So even if women are treated as sex objects then the anger may be

> expressed by nature somehow. So the real way to go would be for women

> ( & men) to do the work to help balance the collective psyche. This

> blesses nature too in my opinion.

*Sympathetic magic, but yes. I agree.

As HH Dalai Lama says: 'Kindness is my religion'.

m