It's humbling and inspiring that that which cannot be understood or imagined or referred to exists- the transcendent is real, even though it is completely beyond the bubble of our mental and physical capacities to apprehend. Another pointer to that which is beyond knowledge and understanding is the word "noumenon." I see you have several posts about noumenon, and I look forward to reading them at some point.
Hi Colleen, it seems that my take on Wayne's words is "closer to home."My take is that they are a pointer to "non-duality."It takes "two" for "referencing."And also to tango! ;-)
Here's a verse from Wei Wu Wei re noumenon.All phenomena are mind (noumenon).Mind is all phenomena.What else could either be?
Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. (Heart Sutra, if I remember right) I love Wei Wu Wei, thanks for the quote.
Your welcome, Colleen! Yes, it's from the Heart Sutra. Speaking of which, in his book Open Secret, Wei Wu Wei devotes an entire section to correcting the common misinterpretation of the aforementioned sutra.The following verse introduces this section and very succinctly states his view on the subject. The burden of the Heart Sutra Is not the nature of objects But the seeing of them, Which is what they are.
So the seeing of the objects is what they are? What sees objects(form) is consciousness, and objects (form) are consciousness...So the seeing of objects (consciousness) is what they are...Form is formless. My problem is I sort of get it as an idea, but intellectual understanding is "the booby prize" (as Charlie Hayes says on a recent video on his site).To actually realize that the nature of objects is the seeing of them...mmmm, I confess I hope to realize this and not just have an idea of it.Thanks for the Open Secret quote.
Remember that the Truth cannot be spoken - only pointed to. Where can one stand to know/objectify what one/this is? So the above verse serves either as a pointer to or as a way of talking about "this" which can't be talked about (objectified).To make matters worse that verse is a shorthand way of introducing the discussion, and is not the last word on the subject.I could say that his last word is non-dual apperceiving, but again, that is just a more sophisticated pointer to "this ubiquitous non-object." My "last word" (pointer) for the moment is---"there only ever IS whatever is."Simple, eh?
Thanks Tom. The brain calms down here from trying to "get it", and there is simple, direct being of the "ubiquitous non-object."