[email protected]

WHAT IS A ANYWAY? A PLAY OF THE MIND?

THE PLAYERS The Hero & Our Weapon, The Pervader – Non-conceptual consciousness PERCEIVING whether things inherently exist or in other words whether they can be found under analysis The Henchman - Consciousness that normally PERCEIVES inherent existence, as if things can be found The Damsel, The Reason – A (or anything else), The Reason we will realise emptiness The Villain, The Subject – The inherent existence of A, Our Target The Happy Ending, The Predicate – Emptiness or NO A THE SCENE At the moment we cannot help but APPREHEND things as if they inherently existed as if they can be found (the other two ways are nominally, to one side for a moment, and as illusion-like or void). Because a Non-Conceptual Consciousness perceiving whether things can be found under analysis, finds nothing upon analysis the subsequent pervasion of a/the reason by a predicate (Emptiness) will invalidate the subject. So because the reason is “where” it is, in the subject, a successful pervasion of the reason by the predicate will contaminate the whole subject category, INHERENT EXISTENCE. Each player must fill the roles assigned above with no cast changes. The reason why the players do what they do, the action (the analysis); the success of the pervasion is entirely up to you. STORYLINE (PLAN) B If we are to understand the Emptiness of A we first need to acknowledge A’s appearance as inherently existent. STORYLINE (PLAN) A We gain an EXPERIENCE of emptiness by attacking/refuting the findability of A. SCENE 1 The Villain has The Damsel – Presence of Reason in subject A or / - \ has been kidnapped by its appearance as inherently existent or as if there is an entity that can be found amongst / - . Until we realise that the Damsel cannot be found with The Henchman (in fact cannot be found at all), A exists in the category INHERENTLY EXISTENT. SCENE 2 Introducing our Hero If we want to find Inherent Existence it would make sense that the only weapon we can use is our consciousness that analyses WHETHER things exist inherently or whether something can be found under analysis. When, finally, we do try to find A, because it happily sits in the inherently existent category the realisation that we cannot find it should contaminate the category inherent existence for us. SCENE 3 Payback Time Because we accept things exist the way they appear we never have reason to look for them. But if we use our hero to try and find something simple like A then we should come to the conclusion that it cannot be found. Why? We want to profit, to experience Emptiness, so we must activate our hero to look for the A that in fact has been kidnapped by the appearance (The Henchman) that it can be found. If A exists it cannot exist separately from its parts because of a very fair criterion; to find A we must be able to point to A. But we can never point to A or / or – or . There is no A we can point to. To realize emptiness you must be utterly devoted to this criterion and look for yourself over and over and over….. So if we 1) keep looking at A and 2) simultaneously decide enough pussy footing around we want to look for A, we activate our hero. Then 3) sorry, you cannot find/point to A either separately, outside its parts and not in its parts either. It is no good to decide that if we look for A we should find it; we must employ our hero to go and look for the damsel, A. Not finding A the category inherent existence is incidentally contaminated. So put aside valid establishment, conventional and nominal existence. The masters are clear – emptiness means not finding something, remember we are not looking for emptiness because it will do for now to say that if you cannot find something, it doesn’t exist! See The TantricDistinction,Jeffrey Hopkins Chapter1

WHAT IS A ANYWAY? A PLAY OF THE MIND? WHAT THE CRITICS THOUGHT! Critic A writes that when the hero comes along, conceptual play is made redundant because he doesnt find an A, amongst / - , a true damsel amongst the aggregates. Critic B has an alternative understanding – the hero is a hero because he is searching for a specific damsel and not just coming in with his gun ratta-tat-tat, refuting everything in sight so that even the damsel “dies” & the play ends! Critic A understands the skilled reasoning work of the hero could be used in another play or to refute another self because the story/pervasion has a good ending. Critic B sees the performance of the hero as focused and enough because the hero is only looking for a specific inherently existent A/damsel and that this is only successful as focused confirmation of the non-existence of a specific inherently existent A/damsel, nothing else – because even after we stop looking at “the play” in everyday life things like A are seen all the time, they continue. Critic A sees the space-like non-finding of A under its basis of designation, / - , as a green light to write - “...because the hero's performance is so strong reason undoubtedly refutes as untrue the damsel and by extension all other “plays” and productions, the play of cause/effect, the I, an independent self, mine, objects etc in the realization of the ultimate ending (space-like non-finding Emptiness), so final it beats all ignorance in all plays and their accompanying philosophies”. Critic B on the other hand allows themselves to be deeply affected by the ending, for them, because they allow the play to have a full focused impact, the continual non-finding of an inherently existent A acts as very freeing confirmation of the utter non-existence of an inherently existent self (the root of actual innate ignorance) that serves as the basis of the afflictions that contaminate experience rather than seeing another philosophical implication. Emptiness is not looked for or “found”! Critic B writes – “...the space-like realization, the non-finding of an inherently existent A achieved by the hero, is fundamental not just to the way The Damsel and all conceptual play is perceived but to the way “A” is produced and hence to the way all “play” is produced because the realization of the Emptiness of one thing is as good as realization of another’s Emptiness – the truth pervades all existent things equally”. Critic B then takes away the point of the performance allowing it to pervade their understanding of reality (what comes up) to reach a hidden meaning, not just how we perceive A as inherently existent. Critic B writes “...A, / - , is an analogy for reality, so this “play” is trying to tell us something deeper”. Reality is all existent things that arise at once together but are empty (of inherent existence) at once together (even emptiness itself is empty). So it is said the actual difficult meaning of the non-finding of inherent existence, Emptiness, is dependent arising as only by this view all cause and effect is possible rather than annihilated by it! Critic B most critically understands if we dont qualify the performance of the hero and if they dont exist as dependent arising’s - as do-able conditions - the much higher experiences of the actual existence of Ultimate Truths via direct perception of Emptiness couldnt be True Cessations of afflictive experience and the achievement of cessation of afflictions couldnt entail Nirvanas, so pursuit of the irreversible experience of Nirvanas as the complete liberation from suffering would be a fools game. (See The Great Treatise on the Stage of the Path to Enlightenment Vol.3 Lama Tsongkapa esp chapters 16&17) powellalexj@googlemail.com

WHAT IS A ANYWAY? 
A PLAY OF THE MIND?

THE PLAYERS

• The Hero & Our Weapon, The Pervader – Non-conceptual consciousness PERCEIVING whether things inherently exist or in other words whether they can be found under analysis
• The Henchman - Consciousness that normally PERCEIVES inherent existence, as if things can be found
• The Damsel, The Reason – A (or anything else), The Reason we will realise emptiness
• The Villain, The Subject – The inherent existence of A, Our Target The Happy Ending, The Predicate – Emptiness or NO A

THE SCENE

At the moment we cannot help but APPREHEND things as if they inherently existed as if they can be found (the other two ways are nominally, to one side for a moment, and as illusion-like or void).

Because a Non-Conceptual Consciousness perceiving whether things can be found under analysis, finds nothing upon analysis the subsequent pervasion of a/the reason by a predicate (Emptiness) will invalidate the subject. So because the reason is “where” it is, in the subject, a successful pervasion of the reason by the predicate will contaminate the whole subject category, INHERENT EXISTENCE. Each player must fill the roles assigned above with no cast changes. The reason why the players do what they do, the action (the analysis); the success of the pervasion is entirely up to you.

STORYLINE (PLAN) B

If we are to understand the Emptiness of A we first need to acknowledge A’s appearance as inherently existent.

STORYLINE (PLAN) A

We gain an EXPERIENCE of emptiness by attacking/refuting the findability of A.

SCENE 1 The Villain has The Damsel –

Presence of Reason in subject A or / - \ has been kidnapped by its appearance as inherently existent or as if there is an entity that can be found amongst / - . Until we realise that the Damsel cannot be found with The Henchman (in fact cannot be found at all), A exists in the category INHERENTLY EXISTENT.

SCENE 2 Introducing our Hero

If we want to find Inherent Existence it would make sense that the only weapon we can use is our consciousness that analyses WHETHER things exist inherently or whether something can be found under analysis. When, finally, we do try to find A, because it happily sits in the inherently existent category the realisation that we cannot find it should contaminate the category inherent existence for us.

SCENE 3 Payback Time

Because we accept things exist the way they appear we never have reason to look for them. But if we use our hero to try and find something simple like A then we should come to the conclusion that it cannot be found. Why? We want to profit, to experience Emptiness, so we must activate our hero to look for the A that in fact has been kidnapped by the appearance (The Henchman) that it can be found. If A exists it cannot exist separately from its parts because of a very fair criterion; to find A we must be able to point to A. But we can never point to A or / or – or . There is no A we can point to. To realize emptiness you must be utterly devoted to this criterion and look for yourself over and over and over…..

So if we 1) keep looking at A and 2) simultaneously decide enough pussy footing around we want to look for A, we activate our hero. Then 3) sorry, you cannot find/point to A either separately, outside its parts and not in its parts either. It is no good to decide that if we look for A we should find it; we must employ our hero to go and look for the damsel, A. Not finding A the category inherent existence is incidentally contaminated. So put aside valid establishment, conventional and nominal existence. The masters are clear – emptiness means not finding something, remember we are not looking for emptiness because it will do for now to say that if you cannot find something, it doesn’t exist! See The TantricDistinction,Jeffrey Hopkins Chapter1

WHAT IS A ANYWAY? 
A PLAY OF THE MIND? 
WHAT THE CRITICS THOUGHT!

Critic A writes that when the hero comes along, conceptual play is made redundant because he doesnt find an A, amongst / - , a true damsel amongst the aggregates.

Critic B has an alternative understanding – the hero is a hero because he is searching for a specific damsel and not just coming in with his gun ratta-tat-tat, refuting everything in sight so that even the damsel “dies” & the play ends!

Critic A understands the skilled reasoning work of the hero could be used in another play or to refute another self because the story/pervasion has a good ending.

Critic B sees the performance of the hero as focused and enough because the hero is only looking for a specific inherently existent A/damsel and that this is only successful as focused confirmation of the non-existence of a specific inherently existent A/damsel, nothing else – because even after we stop looking at “the play” in everyday life things like A are seen all the time, they continue.

Critic A sees the space-like non-finding of A under its basis of designation, / - , as a green light to write - “...because the hero's performance is so strong reason undoubtedly refutes as untrue the damsel and by extension all other “plays” and productions, the play of cause/effect, the I, an independent self, mine, objects etc in the realization of the ultimate ending (space-like non-finding Emptiness), so final it beats all ignorance in all plays and their accompanying philosophies”.

Critic B on the other hand allows themselves to be deeply affected by the ending, for them, because they allow the play to have a full focused impact, the continual non-finding of an inherently existent A acts as very freeing confirmation of the utter non-existence of an inherently existent self (the root of actual innate ignorance) that serves as the basis of the afflictions that contaminate experience rather than seeing another philosophical implication. Emptiness is not looked for or “found”!

Critic B writes – “...the space-like realization, the non-finding of an inherently existent A achieved by the hero, is fundamental not just to the way The Damsel and all conceptual play is perceived but to the way “A” is produced and hence to the way all “play” is produced because the realization of the Emptiness of one thing is as good as realization of another’s Emptiness – the truth pervades all existent things equally”.

Critic B then takes away the point of the performance allowing it to pervade their understanding of reality (what comes up) to reach a hidden meaning, not just how we perceive A as inherently existent.

Critic B writes “...A, / - , is an analogy for reality, so this “play” is trying to tell us something deeper”. Reality is all existent things that arise at once together but are empty (of inherent existence) at once together (even emptiness itself is empty). So it is said the actual difficult meaning of the non-finding of inherent existence, Emptiness, is dependent arising as only by this view all cause and effect is possible rather than annihilated by it!

Critic B most critically understands if we dont qualify the performance of the hero and if they dont exist as dependent arising’s - as do-able conditions - the much higher experiences of the actual existence of Ultimate Truths via direct perception of Emptiness couldnt be True Cessations of afflictive experience and the achievement of cessation of afflictions couldnt entail Nirvanas, so pursuit of the irreversible experience of Nirvanas as the complete liberation from suffering would be a fools game. (See The Great Treatise on the Stage of the Path to Enlightenment Vol.3 Lama Tsongkapa esp chapters 16&17)

powellalexj@googlemail.com