Giving up on enlightenment

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Thinking in terms of existence as a question, philosophy as the place of questions, searching out the answers.

What is there to get.

The only confusion is in clinging to delusions/beliefs such as imagining scenarios of birth/death, self-substance, and generally 'looking at' existence and thinking ahh, this must actually be something else, I just need to understand it better cause "the grass is greener on the other side". It is what it is, what is there to get.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What is there to get.

Whatever there is to explain further. The fact of your own explaining would demonstrate at least that.

The only confusion is in clinging to delusions/beliefs such as imagining scenarios of birth/death, self-substance, and generally 'looking at' existence and thinking ahh, this must actually be something else, I just need to understand it better cause "the grass is greener on the other side".

Those scenarios are not imagination! Or not more or less than we imagine a lot of other things to be the case. The clinging is the delusion and not something we do to a "delusion". The clinging is a result of a misunderstanding of self, its position and the general nature of our thoughts and concepts, the heavens and the earth.

It is what it is, what is there to get.

Would a cow not reason in the same way? Only human consciousness started to realized that nothing is what it appears to be. That some context, logic and investigation is in order to know something more fully. A philosopher would not only appreciate that but pushes for even further "getting". And gaining just a little knowledge would generally be more ignorant than knowing nothing at all but that doesn't mean we should start knowing nothing.

[Pam Seeback]

It is what it is, what is there to get.

What it is.

[Cahoot]

What is there to get.

Apparently, the humorless foibles of dogmatic hangups.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It is a product of imagination when one decides that reality must somehow have a backstory , for example, that it's a creation of god, or a reflection of something else entirely to what we know, that we must discover how it came about, it's cause, or what it means. If you want to say that being rid of such delusions is gaining knowledge, that's fine.

Without such "false-imaginings" reality is exactly what it appears to be.

It is what it is, there are no requirements to exist, any meaning you impute (including "misunderstandings of self") is one story which doesn't change anything about nature. If you think any piece of writing can describe reality more accurately than what is experienced, then you've got an essay to write. The best one can do is help clear away delusion (if that's where you've imputed meaning for yourself, nothing wrong with it).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It is what it is, what is there to get.

What it is.

And if you get 'what' it is? Then what is there to get?

[Pam Seeback]

It is what it is, what is there to get.

What it is.

And if you get 'what' it is? Then what is there to get?

The getting of "it", thinking, doesn't stop the getting of "it", thinking.

[Dennis Mahar]

Seeker,

And if you get 'what' it is? Then what is there to get?

Yeah,
since all is void where can the dust settle.

a thoughtlessness uncovered in thinking in respect to assertion which discriminates.
that is to say 'a mind that cannot be defiled by the dust of thought' as project.

mind as clear, blue sky,
thought, like gathering cloud drifting by.
unmissable context.

It's quite easy to see the movement of thinking as 'leaking'. (often, in order to prevail upon)
drip, drip, drip.
(;

to 'grok' is to catch a thief.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The getting of "it", thinking, doesn't stop the getting of "it", thinking.

That tendency of thinking, needing to reply with your own story, it is not even considered, it must be done. Thus complex philosophy/endless discrimination.

a thoughtlessness uncovered in thinking in respect to assertion which discriminates.
that is to say 'a mind that cannot be defiled by the dust of thought' as project.

mind as clear, blue sky,
thought, like gathering cloud drifting by.
unmissable context.

An end to confusion, too relevant:

'The world is passing show.
How can thoughts arise
of acceptance or rejection?

His mind is empty.
His home is the Absolute.

he who has transcended all thought,
what can he think?

Where is the relative?
Where the transcendent?
Where is happiness or misery?
I am empty of thought.'
- Ashtavakra Gita

"Stop thinking, and end your problems."

"I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty" -Tao Te Ching


It's almost comedic, lovers of truth seeing it, but hovering around it, for years, never quite giving up those last threads, relying on/looking for that grounding.

[Pam Seeback]

"Stop thinking, and end your problems."

"I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty" -Tao Te Ching

No wonder I stopped reading Lao Tzu.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
The getting of "it", thinking, doesn't stop the getting of "it", thinking.

Seeker: That tendency of thinking, needing to reply with your own story, it is not even considered, it must be done. Thus complex philosophy/endless discrimination.

Why do you post here?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Why"

Not sure if you're getting the point of imputed questions/answers. Grounding.

Keep up the good fight.
Unfortunately there's no answer for you.

[Pam Seeback]

If one doesn't know the nature of the ground, how can they land? What is the nature of your ground?

Where have you been for the last ten posts? My ground is in plain view.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Not sure if you're getting the point of imputed questions/answers. Grounding.

The point was groundlessness, without it's own meaning.

Seeking meaning through thought, imputing questions/answers, to what end, is something wrong?

[Fox]

He-
mean's an end' to a beginning-

I'd say.

cond'escend into the next-air of enlightenment-

[Fox]

My friend-Peter-
turned down Budapest and sent for a doctor-to, try and cure himself-from teh the enlightened truth-be, as-it may---he wen't korny.

[Fox]

A=A

[Fox]

The,
Saddest day of my life is when I pointed a gun at myself then found GF.

[Cahoot]

he who has transcended all thought,
what can he think?

Osho makes an interesting distinction between thinking and thought in his commentaries on Pantajali’s Yoga Sutras. If a hint of interest should appear, so may the reference …

[SeekerOfWisdom]

he who has transcended all thought,
what can he think?

Osho makes an interesting distinction between thinking and thought in his commentaries on Pantajali’s Yoga Sutras. If a hint of interest should appear, so may the reference …

Yeah I'll probably need some help finding a link so I can take a look, otherwise feel free to quote.

The immediate distinction I can see in the words is the implication of action/doing in "thinking".

[Cahoot]

he who has transcended all thought,
what can he think?

Osho makes an interesting distinction between thinking and thought in his commentaries on Pantajali’s Yoga Sutras. If a hint of interest should appear, so may the reference …

Yeah I'll probably need some help finding a link so I can take a look, otherwise feel free to quote.

The immediate distinction I can see in the words is the implication of action/doing in "thinking".

"Vitarka, vichar, ananda: Patanjali says if you are attuned with vitarka – a positive reasoning – then you can be a thinker, never before it. Then thinking arises. He has a very different meaning of thinking. You also think that you think. Patanjali will not agree. He says you have thoughts, but no thinking. That’s why I say it is difficult to translate him.

"He says you have thoughts, vagrant thoughts like a crowd, but no thinking. Between your two thoughts there is no inner current. They are uprooted things; there is no inner planning. Your thinking is a chaos. It is not a cosmos; it has no inner discipline. It is just like you see a rosary. There are beads; they are held together by an invisible thread running through them. Thoughts are beads; thinking is the thread. You have beads – too many, in fact, more than you need – but no inner running thread through them. That inner thread is called by Patanjali thinking – vichar. You have thoughts, but no thinking. And if this goes on and on, you will become mad. A madman is a man who has millions of thoughts and no thinking, and samprajnata samadhi is the state in which there are no thoughts, but thinking is perfect. This distinction has to be understood."

Osho, The Alpha and the Omega, Vol. 2, p. 6.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

is the state in which there are no thoughts, but thinking is perfect.

Thinking is then used here as 'unclouded awareness' or understanding of/through awareness.

Take a look at this contrast:

"Thinking of the unthinkable One
unavoidably conjures thought.
I choose no-thought
and remain here.

Becoming first intolerant of
....
then of thought itself,
I come to be here."

"The deluded mind is caught up
in thinking and not thinking.
Though the mind of the wise one
may think what thoughts come,
he is not aware of it."
-Ashtavakra Gita


It seems that the same distinction is being made with different wording. Nevertheless, the point is clear if you know where they're going with it, but not in the words alone.

Caught up with the many distinctions, thoughts or concepts that arise, is of the "deluded"/"mad man".
That Being/awareness which is distinct from any particular thought, not clouded by such thought, is "to be here" or "thinking with no thought".

A direct awareness-understanding disengaged from thought.

a thoughtlessness uncovered in thinking in respect to assertion which discriminates.
that is to say 'a mind that cannot be defiled by the dust of thought' as project.

mind as clear, blue sky,
thought, like gathering cloud drifting by.

"is the state in which there are no thoughts, but thinking is perfect."

Aka, "what is there to get".

[Pam Seeback]

Not sure if you're getting the point of imputed questions/answers. Grounding.

The point was groundlessness, without it's own meaning.

Seeking meaning through thought, imputing questions/answers, to what end, is something wrong?

"Something wrong" is always imputed in the land of thinking, for every thought is a reaction to the previous thought. And by wrong I don't mean bad, I mean the desire to say something, to add something, to question something, to change something - this quality of thought of "coming to be" is eternally present. The hunger of its unknown beginning "being made known". Contrast is the way of consciousness, it cannot help seeing it everywhere it looks, either because of its outer sight or its inner sight.

"Because of" you and I are here, right now. What we are the cause of, we have no idea. Even the silence that greets us when we seek to know our parent cause is in contrast to something, the wanting to know or see "it."

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot quoting Osho: A madman is a man who has millions of thoughts and no thinking, and samprajnata samadhi is the state in which there are no thoughts, but thinking is perfect. This distinction has to be understood."

I agree with Osho in his contrasting of "thought-ing" and thinking. I would add two things:

1. Thinking can arise because of contemplating a single thought.

2. Thinking is perfect when it brings with it the flash of understanding.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is a product of imagination when one decides that reality must somehow have a backstory , for example, that it's a creation of god, or a reflection of something else entirely to what we know, that we must discover how it came about, it's cause, or what it means. If you want to say that being rid of such delusions is gaining knowledge, that's fine.

What is your objection to "products of imagination"? And how would you describe the nature of that objection?

Without such "false-imaginings" reality is exactly what it appears to be.

Are you saying that there's some "true-imaginings" reality? Whatever that might be, it still appears to be, just like with any "false-imaginings".

It is what it is, there are no requirements to exist, any meaning you impute (including "misunderstandings of self") is one story which doesn't change anything about nature. If you think any piece of writing can describe reality more accurately than what is experienced, then you've got an essay to write. The best one can do is help clear away delusion (if that's where you've imputed meaning for yourself, nothing wrong with it).

Enlightenment is about realizing deeply and consistently the nature of past, present and future, ignorance and truth, their differences and non-difference. So by clearing away delusion, "right" view arises as the only option of any evolving, moving consciousness. Experience itself cannot describe anything. The moment one would start a description, even within ones own mind, it's a form of "writing". And the mind does what it does. Better take care with that!