Then you are, at least, present to yourself, as opposed to absent.
Whether you are « presented » to yourself, only you can decide.
Why see « emptiness » as darkness and thoughts as light? There are many unenlightened thoughts, after all, and much wisdom in nothing…
There is a point here. Another of my bugbears is that I find a need to be very careful over the imagery of light and dark. Too often the former is seen as « positive » and the latter « negative », when this is neither necessary nor the intention of the person using that imagery.
Nor should positive and negative be equated with good and bad.
Nor should good and bad be taken too literally.
But I am digressing onto paths I suspect you never had in view with this post.
I think we agree on this point, Simon.
‘Emptiness’ was used here in a positive way (whatever that means, I agree)
And thoughts as the negative polarity.
Emptiness, here, means space. Infinite space.
The necessary infinity of space which may one day welcome the spark of thought, however random and chaotic.
Emptiness, in its Buddhist meaning, equating Vastness (allowed by the absence of ignorance-fueled aggregation of mind-terial.
Shiki soku ze ku
ku soku ze shiki
these are lines from the Hannya Shingyo, recited in Soto Zen Buddhism.
They refer to the absence of hierarchy, between polarities, and mutual dependency and cross generation of emptiness (space / wisdom / …) and phenomena (thoughts…).
Though any attempts at explaining is doomed to failure as there’s nothing to be explained nor grasped.
Maybe this is why leaving it to obscure Sino-Japanese centuries-old signs is probably better.
These are difficult ideas.
It seems to me that « infinity » is, of necessity, unchanging. Yet it must encompass all change. It is not merely that which goes on forever, but also that which was forever, and therefore « is ». Nothing more, or less, quite literally. It simply « is ».
How can there be change in the unchanging? Presumably, here is where illusion takes its stand. And, at that point, does not the generation and development of thought become such illusion?
Perhaps these are simple ideas. It is our determination to prioritise our apparent temporal experience that makes them seem complex.
Notes & Silence 
Then you present yourself as the light and the darkness?
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I don’t present myself
I’m watching the self.
Here, emptiness is darkness, and phenomena — thoughts, light.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Then you are, at least, present to yourself, as opposed to absent.
Whether you are « presented » to yourself, only you can decide.
Why see « emptiness » as darkness and thoughts as light? There are many unenlightened thoughts, after all, and much wisdom in nothing…
There is a point here. Another of my bugbears is that I find a need to be very careful over the imagery of light and dark. Too often the former is seen as « positive » and the latter « negative », when this is neither necessary nor the intention of the person using that imagery.
Nor should positive and negative be equated with good and bad.
Nor should good and bad be taken too literally.
But I am digressing onto paths I suspect you never had in view with this post.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I think we agree on this point, Simon.
‘Emptiness’ was used here in a positive way (whatever that means, I agree)
And thoughts as the negative polarity.
Emptiness, here, means space. Infinite space.
The necessary infinity of space which may one day welcome the spark of thought, however random and chaotic.
Emptiness, in its Buddhist meaning, equating Vastness (allowed by the absence of ignorance-fueled aggregation of mind-terial.
Shiki soku ze ku
ku soku ze shiki
these are lines from the Hannya Shingyo, recited in Soto Zen Buddhism.
They refer to the absence of hierarchy, between polarities, and mutual dependency and cross generation of emptiness (space / wisdom / …) and phenomena (thoughts…).
Though any attempts at explaining is doomed to failure as there’s nothing to be explained nor grasped.
Maybe this is why leaving it to obscure Sino-Japanese centuries-old signs is probably better.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
These are difficult ideas.
It seems to me that « infinity » is, of necessity, unchanging. Yet it must encompass all change. It is not merely that which goes on forever, but also that which was forever, and therefore « is ». Nothing more, or less, quite literally. It simply « is ».
How can there be change in the unchanging? Presumably, here is where illusion takes its stand. And, at that point, does not the generation and development of thought become such illusion?
Perhaps these are simple ideas. It is our determination to prioritise our apparent temporal experience that makes them seem complex.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne