Borrowing from the four great elements,
I assumed my body.
My mind, originally birthless,
Functions according to circumstances.
When circumstances do not exist,
My mind does not exist either.
Woe and weal are like illusions:
They arise, they also fall.
A
…“like” illusions.
I’m wondering how different the meaning of this if the word ‘like’ had been omitted, and therefore how critical that word is here.
hmmm…
A
If I may Mr. Jerry. The word “like” is used here for those not steeped in the particular traditions of eastern metaphysical lexicon thought. Not to sound overly arrogant, but it is intended for the base learner, who is still an intellectualizer, not an actualizer.
Well, it’s just that woe and weal are of the mind. And a non-existent mind, that is to say one devoid of “circumstance” which I am interpreting to mean manifestion in human form, would mean non-existence of woe and weal. And yet that does not seem to render them illusions, but only “like” illusions. These things are real, then, unless I am, to Mas’s point (if I understand it), taking words too literally and therefore intellectualizing what is being said here too much. Are they real only in so far as they can be contemplated, or are they real regardless?
They are real not Real.
A
From this teachers perspective Mr. Jerry, your first assertion is correct: They are only real insomuch as they are contemplated in the temporal sphere. You understand quite well sir.
But that’s the age-old philosophical question. Does love, for example, exist to be tapped into, regardless of whether or not it is being perceived? Or is it a construct merely of mind? I think the latter strains reason.
For myself, ergo the Idiot King’s opinion, love is most certainly a logical construct of life intending to maintain life. That humans build a logical definition of an emotional state for perceptions of survivability behaviors is old hat.
Certainly though, I would not prefer an existence devoid of that particular construct.
Then you’re saying that love is nothing more than chemical processes in an individual’s brain, separate and apart from anybody else’s reality, triggered by electrical impulses, the end result of centuries of evolutionary processes and genetic mutations.
Hmm. Not saying you’re wrong. It just seems that when two people connect, there is something they are connecting to. Is it really just all in their heads?
Okay, LOL, Mr. Jerry cornered me.
I believe, again an Idiot King opinion, that spirit recognizes spirit when attached to sincere entities. Thus, love may be defined in the “larger” sense as the silent acknowledgement of spiritual purity and sincerity.
What about entities that are insincere?
A
I am quite certain that the venerable angel is well aware of the Wheel of Samsara.
Mastriani is cheeky tonight.
Of course he’s right.
A
I like this. Well put.
the shape of the mind,is the thinker’s decisions.
Jerry wrote:
Could love also be the recognition of an already inherent connection.
Which is why people experience ‘love at first sight’. When your love is a continuation. Don’t be fooled, it’s cause and effect which gives us a hint as to the function of love.
A
This is exactly why I am certain that I am the least of my peers here at ILP.
Well done, both of you, simply exquisite.
Mastriani wrote:
Your humbleness has earned you a higher position. Rise up with us!
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.