I dont know if this helps, or even if I am on target here, considering I don't know either of you well enough to be familiar with your linguistical nouse, but to me, and my understanding of the words, "Floating World" for me is analogous with "Dreamtime" (as in Australian aboriginal lore), the latter being much misunderstood. Even I had not considered until I heard an indegenous person mention it. It doesn't refer to some "dreamtime" in the past, like some era in history, it refers to the dreamtime that is here and now and seems have always been here as far as all the cultures on Earth have testified to it.
Regarding the term "Floating world" I had not come across before bb, but it made intuitive sense from the start and I took note that bb always used the same words, carefully selected it would seem, so as to have the clearest possible chance of communicating some very complex subject matter at times.
Namste
Originally posted by karoly aczel I dont know if this helps, or even if I am on target here, considering I don't know either of you well enough to be familiar with your linguistical nouse, but to me, and my understanding of the words, "Floating World" for me is analogous with "Dreamtime" (as in Australian aboriginal lore), the latter being much misunderstood. Even I had not considered u ...[text shortened]... t possible chance of communicating some very complex subject matter at times.
Namste
In the Buddhist tradition "Floating World" is the observer universe the way we perceive it; it is the evanescent world, the physical world that surrounds us and contains all the other observers along with our inner world😵
When I was talking of the "Way" I referred to it in the sense of the phenomonological stream arising from dependent origination. I do not see it in an Abidharmic sense of ontological primitive existents. However whether in Buddhism or Daoism there are variants of definition, and confusion can arise.
Originally posted by Taoman When I was talking of the "Way" I referred to it in the sense of the phenomonological stream arising from dependent origination. I do not see it in an Abidharmic sense of ontological primitive existents. However whether in Buddhism or Daoism there are variants of definition, and confusion can arise.
Confusion arising all the time must be beaten down with a stick 🙂
I do try everyday and sometimes make a connection. This human trick is so awesome and dastardedly at the same time and yet to not realize the beauty of it, such as the beauty of Chloe 😉 , is a life wasted.
The confusion I refer to here is in conversation more than within. Indeed, encountering the abundant beauty of emptiness, confusions become interesting clouds.
If only people could see that without emptiness nothing could be! For something fixed, hard and separate unto itself rather than interacting and interdependent cannot change.But things do change, so all is indeed empty of final essence. Thus all is released from imprisonment.
Dear bb seems to misunderstand my pointing at the Way of the Floating World. That's ok.
Originally posted by Suzianne So, my belief is 'superstition', while your opinion is 'fact'.
Interesting. Excuse me if I hold a contrary position.
Their short-sightedness is because they deny God. Their lives would have far greater meaning with God. And you may deny that if you wish - free will is important - but it is still fact.
But then the question becomes which god? So many to choose from.
Originally posted by Taoman Yes, friend. Ah, Chloe, how sweet she is, eh?
The confusion I refer to here is in conversation more than within. Indeed, encountering the abundant beauty of emptiness, confusions become interesting clouds.
If only people could see that without emptiness nothing could be! For something fixed, hard and separate unto itself rather than interacting and i ...[text shortened]... bb seems to misunderstand my pointing at the Way of the Floating World. That's ok.
Cheers.
Yes, I came across a few new terms when I got on here thanks to BB and vistesd and others...
At least I understand the difference between confusion arising from within and the confusion from misunderstanding.
That clarification was for others Karoly, as my post comes out of a previous older discussion where I felt bb and I seemed to get our wires crossed, labels etc. Reading my post to you again, it may have sounded like it was having a poke at you, which wasn't the intention. Sorry.
Originally posted by RJHinds There is only one God.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
In that case it will be Prince Phillip. We know he is a god because people worship him as a god. There is only space for one so he takes the only available god slot. Glad that's settled.
Originally posted by Taoman That clarification was for others Karoly, as my post comes out of a previous older discussion where I felt bb and I seemed to get our wires crossed, labels etc. Reading my post to you again, it may have sounded like it was having a poke at you, which wasn't the intention. Sorry.
I din't think you were having a poke, which I certainly don't mind my friends doing in the right spirit. But again, you've shed more light on all our positions here. Thanks.
"...Basically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind there is no meaning and no reality. This is a similar conclusion to the Mahayana Buddhist teachings on sunyata."
Meaning
24 Mar '13 23:53
Back to Top