Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
thanks for having pointed out this.Oh, great post Hilary!
I mean the images and informing archetypal energy seems to have a life of it's own if one can just let it flow and be.
Topal
Yes, please! If you find it's too large to upload with the 'attachment' button here, let me know and I'll do so myself....I'd be quite happy for my paper to be available on Clarity if Hilary thought it suitable.
Agreed! I was only addressing the position Wang Bi's quote is used to support ('the words are just a commentary on the lines, dispensable once you understand the lines') - not pretending any in-depth of understanding of what he's saying....Wang Bi ... has been called "harsh," as you know I'm sure, because of his brilliant, youthful rigidity. I am not familiar enough with his commentary to be clear what he meant in the quote, although I have a general idea of what his philosophy was and what his teaching was based on. I think the quote might warrant a scholarly paper to interpret and explicate.
This is completely fascinating - casts a different light on the idea of 'forgetting the images' - thank you.He seems to indicate that images and words can serve as catalysts or means to raise one's consciousness and work to refine the "soul." Ideas are light, dynamic and alive, part of a different level, like the realm of the Immortals, yet part of our "soul." An active relation between two worlds or levels can be sought as a practice. In studying the ancients' thought Buddha said that one can hear the dharma being spoken (or Songs of immortals) in open space when the souls interact with others and they alternate as host and guests. Lu Tungpin (one of the eight immortals) called this state "the presence of the gods in the valley." ...
Ditto! I've juxtaposed two quotations from two thinkers I know more or less nothing about. It makes for a fun blog post and a lot of frustration when I look at how many other things I have to do before I can study either of them.Would love to return to this when I have more time...
I understand the meaning of "it has a life of its own", and respect it a great deal in this kind of context, but I'm also cautious of Platonic fetishism which attempts to objectify the subject.
I love this subject, but I think it's a bumpy one to try to follow in a straight line. Overall, regarding the main point, I agree. But then I find disagreement with myself about it.
First, I agree with becoming the image, as the image is more inclusive and enduring than the thought the image creates, to solve a problem or question.
A personal one for me is "white dog", who is the quintessential observer. The image of white dog is more dependable than any and all thoughts which stem from contemplating what white dog is or what he says or what he means. The image is more essential.
However, as white dog helps me resolve what is observed, it is still an image (and a form itself: white dog. So then, what is the image and where does it come from, if not from the object of observation?me)
I understand the meaning of "it has a life of its own", and respect it a great deal in this kind of context, but I'm also cautious of Platonic fetishism which attempts to objectify the subject.
It reminds me of something Bradford had once said regarding that (to me) special mountain peak, with images of hawk and heads, named Castle Rock: "Cool pile of rocks." I became a little indignant, because to me it represented more than a pile of rocks. And though the image is of greater significance (to me) than what the image has to tell me, show me or teach me on any given day, it is indeed just a cool pile of rocks.
from my little and simple point of view: anything i see belongs to me, comes from Me;
but i'm not making so actively that my Guiding Animal tells me something, i'm not inventing activley (otherwise which is the sense of it?!). i ask a question, for instance, and He/She answers; what is answered to me it's a surprise.
Which is greater: me here, me everywhere (as potential), or white dog?
Hello Meng;
I'm not sure if I am understanding accurately what you mean --- but this is what your words evoke in me.
I often struggle with getting the image into language but I'll give it a shot.
Perhaps the image containing meaning or power or magic does come from "me" --but it is a part that is much larger than the way I normally experience the world ( either inner or outer world). As I observe ( or relate - for that is how I experience it ) to the image, I am changed, expanded in some way. I have been pervaded and altered. Often, as well, the image itself undergoes some sort of change in this process.
I have found that I like to leave some parts of the experience unexplained because in that way, I am not creating a cage but am allowing the image to stay free. Possibly a metaphor would be, that the images are the wild, natural flora and fauna of the inner landscape -- which I have been given the honor of interacting with.
Hope that makes some sort of sense.
Chushel
Sorry I missed this earlier, Chushel.
I like your visual landscape of the idea a lot. The image stays free, and speaks as the oracle. Not only the image stays free, but its entire landscape remains alive.
The context is an image too, a smaller one. It is the person walking around inside the great image.
So now there are two living images, one walking around within the other. And yet there is still one who observes the small image walking around inside the great image. Is it the same great image which also sees the small, such as the reflection of the mouse in the snake's eyes? or is there a third image, which observes both the great and the small? Or, where does seeing lose the distinguished difference between seeing and being seen?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).