|
@meditationstuff | |||||
|
What sort of grain and style/depth/rigor are you looking for?
Non-technical pithy stuff is like:
Not mistaking map for territory.
Realizing the brain is serving up experience of both you and world with no remainder.
You’ll only ever experience map; never territory(-ish)
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
2. kol |
|
Are there any accounts of "emptiness", preferably purely phenomenological/methodological, that don't presume a contentious metaphysics?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
2. kol |
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
2. kol |
|
These are all actually exactly the sort of contentious metaphysical positions I have issue with.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
2. kol |
|
If all we experience is map, stuff served up by the brain (how do you know anything about that organ in your skull just from meditation, and not from metaphysical interpretations of science?), then reference to reality is not possible.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mark (🧘🧪🧙♂️💩❤️)
@meditationstuff
|
2. kol |
|
Only qualities are real; even concepts might be built out of qualities.
And all the pith above, is itself empty cf the rigorous “emptiness of emptiness” material.
Ballpark helpful? Or want less twittery or more authoritative stuff?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mark (🧘🧪🧙♂️💩❤️)
@meditationstuff
|
2. kol |
|
Realizing for the first time that the “territory” you’re staring at is in fact “map” can be a pretty holy fuck moment. Or like when you realize the “landscape” is filled with those patches and then like if/when entire field of experience is sort of “hanging” in “nothingness”
|
||
|
|
||