2009.07.16 - Dialogue #1

genesis Zhangsun: shall we ask Being to come in?

Pema Pera: hehehe, sure!
genesis Zhangsun: trying to hear for and listening to are different thing
genesis Zhangsun: *things
genesis Zhangsun: with regard to Being
Pema Pera: hear for as in opening up to?
genesis Zhangsun: no let me clarify
genesis Zhangsun: hearing for something is listening to someone talk but only watching for certain cues
genesis Zhangsun: the things you like and dislike
genesis Zhangsun: reacting
Pema Pera: ah!
genesis Zhangsun: listening to is to listen with equanimity
genesis Zhangsun: like listening to a good friend cry
genesis Zhangsun: putting aside your own reactions
genesis Zhangsun: so you can really understand things as they are
genesis Zhangsun: for your friend
genesis Zhangsun: not what you think might be an interesting solution from your point of view
Pema Pera: yes
Pema Pera: so that is the opening up, the listening to
Pema Pera: opening up for
genesis Zhangsun: yes that is opening up the listening to
genesis Zhangsun: opening up like a flower, not opening up like a door
Pema Pera: :)
genesis Zhangsun: you don't pull the door open just as you don't pull a flower apart
genesis Zhangsun: you just watch for when it opens
genesis Zhangsun: watching is the most important part
genesis Zhangsun: observation is far more important doing
genesis Zhangsun: *than doing
Pema Pera: seeing is enough :-)
genesis Zhangsun: yes in essence :)
Pema Pera: of course easy to misunderstand, like "not-doing", wu-wei, . . . . the doing is not suppressed, but arises naturally, after seeing
Pema Pera: interesting in this respect is the Japanese equivalent of wu-wei
Pema Pera: same characters, 無為
Pema Pera: but then two extra characters added
Pema Pera: natural, 自然
Pema Pera: 無為自然
Pema Pera: Japanese don't easily understand when you sai "mui", 無為
Pema Pera: but immediately get "muishizen" 無為自然
Pema Pera: (at those who are sufficiently cultured or in tune, not everyone knows the expression)
genesis Zhangsun: what does it mean natural?
genesis Zhangsun: lets unpack that
genesis Zhangsun: it can be vague
Pema Pera: like "nature"
Pema Pera: "not doing according to the way of nature"
genesis Zhangsun: and what is the way of nature?
Pema Pera: not doing in the way nature doesn't do
genesis Zhangsun: my scientist friend :)
Pema Pera: :-)
Pema Pera: following the Tao :)
genesis Zhangsun: that is a very unscientific answer :)
genesis Zhangsun: and what is it to follow the Tao?
Pema Pera: perhaps the most direct translation of "muishizen" is "effortless following your/the nature"
Pema Pera: or the Tao
Pema Pera: following as being in accord with
genesis Zhangsun: your nature and natural forces are seen as one?
genesis Zhangsun: there is no actor only natural forces acting through you?
Pema Pera: no, but related
Pema Pera: in Japan, houses are built so as to let garden and house blend together
Pema Pera: for Japanese sensibility, nature is personal and personal is nature
Pema Pera: rivers and mountains are kami-sama
Pema Pera: gods is one translation but a misleading one

Pema Pera: kami is kami :-)
Pema Pera: nature in somewhat personal form
Pema Pera: that's just what a river or a tree is
Pema Pera: it has a life force
Pema Pera: and so have we
Pema Pera: and it is all so connected
genesis Zhangsun: yes talk about that? is Being oneness?
Pema Pera: no, Being is beyond one and many
Pema Pera: that's why it can express itself in myriad phenomena
Pema Pera: while retaining its essence (dangerous word, should find a better word)
genesis Zhangsun: is space included in Being?
Pema Pera: Being allows everything to appear, including space
Pema Pera: no pun intended re: including
Pema Pera: nothing is "included" in Being
Pema Pera: Being is before separation and distance and packaging
Pema Pera: before/beyond
genesis Zhangsun: so Being is not the total of the myriad phenomena
Pema Pera: not at all
Pema Pera: that's one of the many misconceptions that we easily fall into when using ordinary logic
Pema Pera: which is not suitable for a term like Being
Pema Pera: Being is beyond all dichotomies, including inner and outer -- hence Being CANNOT include anything
Pema Pera: this is one of the freeing aspects of Being
genesis Zhangsun: but then how can we use it? We can work with world precisely because we divide it into opposing concepts
genesis Zhangsun: how can you work with something beyond definition
genesis Zhangsun: beyond opposites?
Pema Pera: we cannot use it, as long as we identify with what we normally take ourselves to be, a limited being; we have to drop both the "I" that we identify with, and the nothing of "using" . . . .
Pema Pera: Being can play through/as us
Pema Pera: through us, as seen from our perspective; as us, as seen from Beings perspective that is not a perspective
Pema Pera: the one and ONLY thing needed is to look through the other end of the telescope
Pema Pera: Being's end, not ours.
genesis Zhangsun: why does it play?
Pema Pera: what kind of answer are you looking for?
Pema Pera: based on what as more fundamental?
genesis Zhangsun: there is no actor
genesis Zhangsun: it is difficult to imagine a play without actors
genesis Zhangsun: you look for a motive
Pema Pera: but there is the appearance of actors
genesis Zhangsun: yes there is the appearance of actors
Pema Pera: and the appearance of motives, for sure
genesis Zhangsun: and the actors believe their motives are theirs
Pema Pera: the appearance of everything -- nothing is denied, suppressed, ignored
Pema Pera: well, . . . . let us go very slowly
Pema Pera: with the appearance of actors comes also the appearance of actors believing their motives
Pema Pera: to say that the actors believe is already to reify the actors too much
Pema Pera: there are no actors who are able to believe
Pema Pera: nothing exists
Pema Pera: and there is no time
Pema Pera: yet the appearance of time and existence and the whole shlebang
Pema Pera: looking at yourself and seeing that you can't even believe the wrong thing, since it is all Being playing you, can be *very* liberating -- an example of "seeing is enough"!
Pema Pera: at best/worst the appearance of you can be part of the play of there seemingly being a you who seemingly believes the wrong thing -- that's about as wrong as things can go . . . .
Pema Pera: a rather mild "wrongness" :-)
Pema Pera: seeing this lets you smile
Pema Pera: and drop
Pema Pera: all heaviness
genesis Zhangsun: so we see illusions, the seeing through is action enough, what about the illusions we do not see through
Pema Pera: they are equally appearances, at bottom there is no difference
Pema Pera: there is no need to see, to be liberated . . . .
Pema Pera: right here and now, we have the choice to stop being bothered by illusions that we fear may hamper us . . . that is the ultimate warrior stance, and at the same time the ultimate meekness

Pema Pera: a light smile
genesis Zhangsun: so one way to overcome suffering is to see/battle our illusions, another way is to let that go and to be ready for any appearance of a battle
Pema Pera: yes, and only the second one can ever succeed
Pema Pera: the first one is just entertainment till we are ready for the second one
genesis Zhangsun: yes
genesis Zhangsun: fear of fear
Pema Pera: yes
Pema Pera: but I'm now expressing the most radical position -- which can be extremely misleading :-)
genesis Zhangsun: yes it sounds like I can just lay down and forget about improving my life in anyway!
genesis Zhangsun: why don't I just watch television and eat tv dinners?
Pema Pera: and whenever we function in our play as Being playing a human being, as that human being, I should say also many other things, more on the relative level, as part of the play, including compassion and concerned action
Pema Pera: watching tv and eating dinner is typically not "not doing" :-)   --  real seeing being enough leads to not-doing
genesis Zhangsun: well it was a bit extreme but you see the danger in it!
Pema Pera: but someone really in touch with Being may decide to express that by watching tv for a while, say :-)
Pema Pera: there is no set way.
Pema Pera: Yes, I see, for sure, this radical speech is so misleading
genesis Zhangsun: so one must be both viligent and relaxed?
Pema Pera: it is not clear even whether it is wise to speak this way
genesis Zhangsun: alert and calm
Pema Pera: one must see -- and then viligent and relaxed follows
Pema Pera: yes, they are side effects
Pema Pera: like blushing when embarrased
Pema Pera: you don't learn to be embarrased by trying to force more blood through your cheeks
genesis Zhangsun: so vigilgence, alertness, clam those are secondary what is primary?
genesis Zhangsun: to seeing?
Pema Pera: primary is seeing, yes, I think so -- can't think of anything more primary, except perhaps "is"
Pema Pera: in a non-personal way, you could say "is"
Pema Pera: in a personal way "see"
Pema Pera: and Being is beyond personal and non-personal
Pema Pera: In Tibetan Buddhism a way to summarize ultimate reality is to characterize it as "emptiness and clarity"
Pema Pera: the emptiness of empty being, and the clarity of seeing that
genesis Zhangsun: so "is" is empty
genesis Zhangsun: seeing is seeing emptiness?
Pema Pera: yes .... though words are tricky . . . .
Pema Pera: seeing that phenomena are also empty
Pema Pera: and have never been otherwise
Pema Pera: and time and space being empty
Pema Pera: and any sense of separation or distance in space or time or knowledge as illusionary
Pema Pera: there is full knowing in seeming lack of knowledge
Pema Pera: full presence in seeming isolation in space and time
Pema Pera: devotion is the quickest road to prepare for seeing
Pema Pera: setting aside barriers to willing to accept that seeing is enough
Pema Pera: allow the full presence of reality in the form of the play of your favorite deity, for example
Pema Pera: thus overcoming the (mistaken belief in) isolation
Pema Pera: so much easier to be devoted to a deity than to Being
genesis Zhangsun: one must have the time to see
Pema Pera: like so much easier to fall in love with a person than with all of humanity :)
genesis Zhangsun: if you never take the time to see it then you won't
Pema Pera: hhhmmmmm
genesis Zhangsun: your whole life could pass by without ever appreciating it but you say time doesn't exist
Pema Pera: it doesn't take time, can't take time, strictly speaking
genesis Zhangsun: efforting is not necessary
genesis Zhangsun: yes explain please
Pema Pera: but you are right: on the relative level it seems as if giving yourself more leisure and time to meditate, relax, pray, walk, reflect, helps to open up
Pema Pera: but ultimately that, too, is illusion
Pema Pera: we don't need time -- not only is seeing enough, there is no need to prepare for seeing in the future
Pema Pera: NOW seeing is enough

Pema Pera: and all the seeing we need is here already, going on already
Pema Pera: the very awareness you are bringing into play right now IS this seeing we are talking about!
Pema Pera: to let this sink it is truly awesome . . . . . . . . . . .
Pema Pera: *sink in
genesis Zhangsun: so a reaction that many will have to do is shock: we are living in time where the world seems dark
genesis Zhangsun: the enviornment is decaying, overpopulation is rampant
genesis Zhangsun: there is poverty, there is ignorance
genesis Zhangsun: there are people who hardly have the moment to rest, to meditate to take the time to appreciate their lives
genesis Zhangsun: and if you say that this enough what does that mean?
Pema Pera: let's start from the other end, from matter, from the material world.
genesis Zhangsun: is everything really perfect the way it is in the state it is now?
Pema Pera: The atoms that make up the world, they themselves are not decaying, empoverished, nothing is wrong or rampant with them -- it is the patterns that they are woven in that are problematic
Pema Pera: so already on that most basic level of a material view, we can see that it is patterns that are problematic, not the "stuff" that shows the patterns.
Pema Pera: This already gives a hint that the highest view, of Being being a kind of "stuff" that shows patterns in the form of phenomena, has a similer kind of status, loosely speaking
Pema Pera: the main difference is that from a purely material point of view, it seems very hard if not impossible to play with the patterns that are present

Pema Pera: whereas from the Being point of view, it is all much more open and fluid.
Pema Pera: But having said that, there may be very little difference between the visible actions of a materialist and someone involved in Play as Being
Pema Pera: in both cases they may very well spend great effort in helping people in various ways
Pema Pera: the motives are different, to some extent, and the whole attitude of someone playing as Being is far more free and relaxed, and thus can be far more effective too.
Pema Pera: but this is such a big topic, we can only scratch the surface here, and with each line I type here, I can just see all the objections that many people will throw at us, immediately :-)
genesis Zhangsun: I think we are just warming up
Pema Pera: :)
genesis Zhangsun: not necessarily for today
genesis Zhangsun: but for the weeks to come
Pema Pera: yep
genesis Zhangsun: so the patterns that you refer to
genesis Zhangsun: these would you say are the Tao
genesis Zhangsun: laws of nature
Pema Pera: ultimately, yes, expression of the Tao, of Reality, of the Universe, of what Is
Pema Pera: "laws" is an interesting word, and may be appropriate when see as something flexible and evolving, not put in stone, although I immediately should add that *as long as* we talk from within a particular world we assume we live in, then within that world some patterns are a condition for that world to appear, so as long as that world appears by definition they seem unchangable and fixed (until you realize that without time, the very appearance of the world you seem to live in cannot be fixed since it doesn't endure)
Pema Pera: *when seen as
genesis Zhangsun: I am trying to drop time
Pema Pera: don't :)
Pema Pera: since that trying would suggest there is a time that can be dropped
Pema Pera: making things worse :-)
genesis Zhangsun: yes
Pema Pera: seeing is enough
Pema Pera: AND YOU ARE ALREADY SEEING
genesis Zhangsun: there is a lot of karmic residue which effects are mind and body states
Pema Pera: there is the appearance of a lot of karmic residue
Pema Pera: there never has been a single grain of karma
Pema Pera: there never will be
Pema Pera: there cannot be
Pema Pera: no need to buy into that, unless you really want to
genesis Zhangsun: why would you want to?
Pema Pera: because of the cozyness of habit :)
Pema Pera: choosing the devil you know beyond the angel you fear
Pema Pera: we are wedded to our problems, don't want to let them go, it seems like the only thing we really got!
genesis Zhangsun: yes it is not so cozy seeing yourself  in a world that is always changing until you see it like a movie
genesis Zhangsun: then you can get your popcorn and get in the front seat :)
Pema Pera: :)

Pema Pera: yes, a fun metaphor, one of my favorite, though I've learned to see more and more ways in which that metaphor too can be immensely misleading . . . .
Pema Pera: yes :)
genesis Zhangsun: yes it can be misleading
Pema Pera: any metaphor can be and will be
Pema Pera: may I take a step back?
genesis Zhangsun: so it really is about orientation
genesis Zhangsun: sure
Pema Pera: to the idea "seeing is enough"
Pema Pera: two ways to interpret that vital sentence
Pema Pera: the most normal way would be this:
Pema Pera: "IF you (can learn to) see THEN that is enough"
Pema Pera: so that puts it like a lollipop out into the future, out in space to reach for at a future moment in time
Pema Pera: Now the other more radical way of reading this vital sentence is VERY scary
Pema Pera: it drops all sense of if . . . . .
Pema Pera: no if
Pema Pera: the very awareness that presents all that presents itself right here and now, that awareness itself is already the seeing that is already enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
genesis Zhangsun: yes there is no one to learn how to see
genesis Zhangsun: the seeing is enough because it is the presence
Pema Pera: can you feel how scary that is?
genesis Zhangsun: yes
genesis Zhangsun: and comforting
Pema Pera: yes
genesis Zhangsun: you have to sit in the front seat of the car but you aren't the gas in the car
genesis Zhangsun: you aren't driving but you do have to be right in the very front (heart) of it all
genesis Zhangsun: you are the heart of it all
Pema Pera: yes
genesis Zhangsun: the heart pumping the presence
genesis Zhangsun: is it like a symbiotic relationship?
genesis Zhangsun: hard to imagine
genesis Zhangsun: beyond imagination
Pema Pera: every metaphor is only partially successful . . . .
genesis Zhangsun: yes
Pema Pera: yes
genesis Zhangsun: everything is in such a close relation
genesis Zhangsun: that it blurs together
Pema Pera: yet already here, completely, nowhere else
genesis Zhangsun: time is what allows you to be in the presence
genesis Zhangsun: without time there is only the presence
genesis Zhangsun: so back up time is what allows the appearance of your presence
genesis Zhangsun: there really is no time so there really is no you only the presence
genesis Zhangsun: and that presence is accessibly from any point
genesis Zhangsun: because there really is no separation of my space and great space
genesis Zhangsun: *acccesible
genesis Zhangsun: *accessible
genesis Zhangsun: bad spelling
genesis Zhangsun: lets get rid of great space
genesis Zhangsun: that presence is always accessible because it isn't located anywhere
genesis Zhangsun: in time/space
Pema Pera: In tsk terms, Being has three facets, Time being one: so Being, as Time, allows the appearance of your presence, and Knowledge is what acknowledges that
Pema Pera: and one point is all points
Pema Pera: I wouldn't want to insist on using tsk terms, but they do present a very crisp vocabulary
Pema Pera: though we really should develop our own
genesis Zhangsun: yes we have to
Pema Pera: as we are doing here