Why do people have the desire to talk?

[Pam Seeback]

I can summarize your interpretation of my understanding of self, the world and causality very simply: it is incorrect. Truth: I, consciousness, do not interpret an enduring self or an enduring world. Truth: I, consciousness, do not take the concept of causality literally.

You see, it's all to be taken literally, but forgetting the language, it's very obvious in your own experience if you take an authentic and independent look, free of concept clinging. Hence I suggest more meditation and contemplation in solitude.

To take something literally is to take language literally. Hence there is no forgetting of language when 'taking literally.' Wisdom doctrine such as given by the Buddha is not ultimately meant to be taken literally, rather is purposed to support the mind as it awakens to the truth of emptiness and impermanence. Ultimately, all attachment to doctrine is dropped.

Will add to/edit this comment later, as I understand a lot of what I've written so far is incomplete as reasoning/vague.

No need since your reasoning is based on a false assumptions of my understanding of self, the world and causality.

If you are willing, I suggest we return to the two premises that brought us to this point:

1. The goal of enlightened consciousness is the ending of desire. It is my understanding that both of us agree with this statement.

2. That the ending of desire via insight meditation can come about while engaged in relationship (conventionally known as friendship, marriage, parenthood, grandparenthood, etc.). It is my understanding that you do not agree with this statement.

[JohnJAu]

do not interpret an enduring self or an enduring world.

Just an individual consciousness that you reason may cease at death, one that in some way must be distinct from reality if you reason it as being caused? What do you reason caused "I, consciousness"?

Am I not correct in presuming you understand your experience of being as 'consciousness', and consciousness as being caused? (And thus may come to dissolution once the dependent causal factors dissolve/change)

You are either unwilling or unable to reason this speculation out or explain it. It is very relevant to ending desire, as desire is a karmic consequence of ignorance of the nature of reality which leads to worldly attachment, and is perpetuated by such delusion. As I understand it desire always arises causally with the attachment to things (belief that they exist) and all that comes with such belief, whether it is pride, pleasure, expectation, love, etc. This is as opposed to the wisdom of 'oneness' (awareness that the distinction making/observed boundaries of all forms and sensations are fleeting and ultimately unreal).

That the ending of desire via insight meditation can come about while engaged in relationship (conventionally known as friendship, marriage, parenthood, grandparenthood, etc.). It is my understanding that you do not agree with this statement.

It seems to be another 'odd' question, and it's not surprising that you would focus on your worldly attachments. It reminds me of a commonly used phrase about women which many have realized is feminine and delusional "Not all woman are like that", except in your case you are saying "Not all attachments are like that", because yours is special and different and you're wise enough to deal with it well. Perhaps emotional attachment and investment has decided this for you as there's no other option you could consider.

The ending of desire via insight meditation IS the ending of the existence of parents and children, of the existence of relationships and grandchildren.

I know the experience of attachment to 'other' well, but wisdom reveals "self" ( as well as "other") to be (literally) illusion, fantasy, like santa clause.

This realization ought not just remain a concept or logical view, it ought to manifest in your daily awareness. Literally to be noticed, ever present in your vision.

Whatever wrong view a wisdom seeker leans toward most on the spectrum (opposite ends of the spectrum being "existence" or "non existence") ought to be the view which is denied and discredited, for that seekers benefit and to hint at right view. You apparently lean more toward existence, and therefore ought to be told that children and husbands do not exist, they are like fantasies you may not want to give up because of emotional investment, they are mirages, illusions.
They are dependent on a juggling act, one which takes quiet a bit of effort and a lot of pretense, wherein the mind is busy tying together memories, attachments, feelings, expectations, conventional knowledge, and so on, in the process of creating and sustaining a seeming of real forms. It's a lot like a child watching the clouds and distinguishing animals and stories out of their movement, just with a bit more colour. The Buddha expressed the unreality of things well and apparently went so far as to liken worldly forms to bubbles.

The 'other' and their seeming of personhood are dependent on 'the mere thought of a name', 'they manifest at your glance'. You may as well be creating and playing out a show, day after day. Or living out one which has been written (causality), as puppets are pulled along by many strings.

To rid oneself of this delusion is to do as poison for the heart suggests: "Do not be afraid to bring the infinite into yourself".

Or as Ashtavakra describes:
"From Brahma to the last blade of grass,
I alone exist."

As for Buddhist doctrine, it clearly states monks ought to abandon sex, parenthood, marriage, music, alcohol, singing, chasing pleasurable sensation, etc. Not sure a grandchild would enjoy such a lifestyle. How would you engage with parents, what would you reply when coming across all the vanity? How much authenticity would you need to suppress? What do you say when it comes to gift time?
Think wholistically. I'd say the view you're describing doesn't make sense, but you are yet to say much, it seems you're implying a lot and elaborating little.

I'm attempting to understand in what way forum members understand life and death, as much here is shared view and there is clearly aligned understanding, (such as understanding surrounding desire, the arising of suffering, etc) yet then there are the differences I find specifically when coming across varied metaphysical views in relation to body, matter, consciousness, causality, life and death.

[Pam Seeback]

John: I'd say the view you're describing doesn't make sense, but you are yet to say much, it seems you're implying a lot and elaborating little.

It is interesting to me that the enlightened realization is, as you say, that "we" are the experiential infinite (we are God experiencing God) but that in many cases, the "enlightened" mind then contradicts this realization by declaring "worldly" experiences to be ungodly. What is to elaborate vis a vis the infinity of God? God experiences worlds of hate, love, lust, hope, sex, pain, pleasure, children, farting, cataracts, discontent, contentedness...the list is endless. Are you more God than me or vice versa? Based on the truth of God's infinity, the answer is no.

[jufa]

I have been reading the conversation between you Pam and JohnJ, and, from my reading, find the both of you standing at a line drawn in the sands but neither can crossover for lack of determining whether consciousness or awareness constitutes the 'I' consciousness.

To ask for reasoning which defines the existence of consciousness or awareness of 'I', to me, is the same of asking why was it I that came into being from the activity of my parents, and not you?

The important factor here, in my understanding, is I exist as a conscious of awareness which is because of Something unknown, and which does not reveal it reasoning or intent or purpose to my sentient mind as to cause and effect of Its decision why It did what It did. And what base can my sentient minds stand upon to conceptualize, debate, or even think upon this thing man calls creation? So what is the point of the desire to talk that which one does not know?

There is a reality. All who has been read about who lived through stories told. All who live today was birthed into life from life, and will die in life, not death. So the questions to me should be, is it life which is consciousness and creator? being there is no information any individual before us, and alive today has spoke upon other than pure speculative hearsay?

Just my 2cents.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[JohnJAu]

"we" are the experiential infinite (we are God experiencing God) but that in many cases, the "enlightened" mind then contradicts this realization by declaring "worldly" experiences to be ungodly. What is to elaborate vis a vis the infinity of God? God experiences worlds of hate, love, lust, hope, sex, pain, pleasure, children, farting, cataracts, discontent, contentedness...the list is endless. Are you more God than me or vice versa? Based on the truth of God's infinity, the answer is no.

A nice way to avoid elaboration: "Ignorance is part of the infinite too, we're all equal".

There's nothing ungodly about them, no devil or lower class or anything like that, just suffering, which when understood completely as continuing for an incomprehensible amount of time, the true 'seriousness' of escaping existence is revealed. Hence the relevance of a correct understanding of rebirth.

" [Samsara-the Wheel of Existence, lit., the "Perpetual
Wandering"-is the name by which is designated the sea of life ever
restlessly heaving up and down, the symbol of this continuous
process of ever again and again being born, growing old, suffering,
and dying. More precisely Put: Samsara is the unbroken chain of the
fivefold Khandha-combinations, which, constantly changing from
moment to moment, follow continuously one upon the other through
inconceivable periods of time. Of this Samsara, a single lifetime
constitutes only a vanishingly tiny fraction; hence, to be able to
comprehend the first noble truth, one must let one's gaze rest upon
the Samsara, upon this frightful chain of rebirths, and not merely
upon one single lifetime, which, of course, may be sometimes not
very painful.]
Which do you think is the more: the flood of tears, which weeping
and wailing you have shed upon this long way-hurrying and hastening
through this round of rebirths, united with the undesired, separated
from the desired, or the waters of the four oceans?
Long time have you suffered the death of father and mother, of sons,
daughters, brothers, and sisters. And whilst you were thus
suffering, you have, verily, shed more tears upon this long way than
there is water in the four oceans."

[JohnJAu]

Its decision why It did what It did. And what base can my sentient minds stand upon to conceptualize, debate, or even think upon this thing man calls creation? So what is the point of the desire to talk that which one does not know?

There is a reality. All who has been read about who lived through stories told. All who live today was birthed into life from life, and will die in life, not death. So the questions to me should be, is it life which is consciousness and creator? being there is no information any individual before us, and alive today has spoke upon other than pure speculative hearsay?

It's by recognizing what you've described here that one understands life: speculation, conceptualization and thinking upon creation are not the only path to the direct-understanding which wisdom of ultimate reality is founded on, they are merely tools, descriptions, reflections of truth, etc. (Remembering that this entire process is caused and not by personal decision) Truth which is "so difficult to perceive, difficult to understand, tranquilizing and sublime, which is not to be gained by mere reasoning, and is visible only to the wise."

Truth can be 'visible'. One recognizes possible distortions such as concept-clinging, and reasons pure speculative hearsay to be mostly nonsense. Hence quotes like these and more besides from those wisdom texts such as the tao te ching.

"The greatest seers, saints and yogis
agree on very little.
Seeing this,
who could not be indifferent to knowledge
and become still?"
-Ashtavakra

"“Study leads to the retention of concepts and so the Way is entirely misunderstood.”
“All the concepts you have formed in the past must be discarded and replaced by void.”
-Huang Po

So what is the point of the desire to talk that which one does not know?

It's the attempt to increase clarity and certainty, which may be a misguided attempt, but seems necessary on matters of such importance, especially considering that wise goals might include extinguishing worldliness, and even existence, let alone talking.

[jufa]

There was no need, but I re-read my words to find where I stated, or even indicated one understand life, but found no such wording as you have stated I wrote about understanding life. Perhaps I have overlooked this statement and should I have, then I will acknowledge my saying of such.

Nonetheless, I will give you the benefit of doubt and in doing so, I find you skipped over the point I placed in my post stating:

To ask for reasoning which defines the existence of consciousness or awareness of 'I', to me, is the same of asking why was it I that came into being from the activity of my parents, and not you?

This statement would verify your awareness and knowledge of the reasoning, intent, and purpose for life, but the wisdom of cause to begin with.

But not only that, how would one go about recognizing life whole, prefect, complete and pureness from a mind filled with fragmented puzzle parts when said mind cannot recognize that which it is not consciously aware of?

A concept is a concept with nothing upholding it but the earthly human thought of interpretation, but not knowledge or wisdom beyond Gaia's body, except by sentient imagination which acquires its information from the mind that captures thought which flow free, and by analyzing them from its human experiences based upon the five human senses which are relative, and regulated to the mentality of this sentient would of thought speculation and interpretations.

These are the tools you speak about. and though they take one to the utmost point of comprehension, when they get there, they will find not only the life of the thought which placed them there, but consciousness preceded the mind to this destination. Moreover, the 'I' consciousness will not find the cause of the 'I' consciousness there, why is this? Because one knows not where infinity is not.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[JohnJAu]

There was no need, but I re-read my words to find where I stated, or even indicated one understand life, but found no such wording as you have stated I wrote about understanding life. Perhaps I have overlooked this statement and should I have, then I will acknowledge my saying of such.

The important factor here, in my understanding, is I exist as a conscious of awareness which is because of Something unknown, and which does not reveal it reasoning or intent or purpose to my sentient mind as to cause and effect of Its decision why It did what It did. And what base can my sentient minds stand upon to conceptualize, debate, or even think upon this thing man calls creation?

I was replying to this, as it seemed you were asking about what one stands upon to understand 'creation', which I replaced with the word life, as I understand these as the same. I answered that the base upon which it stands is, ironically, what's revealed without a conceptual base, without a grounding. What's 'visible' amongst the void, the truth of one's 'inner-most consciousness'.

You implied some things here, making a few assumptions of your own in the process, such as, "because of Something unknown". I disagree that there is any reasoning pointing toward any unknown causes leading to existence, especially any which would have reasoning or intent or purpose or "why".

To ask for reasoning which defines the existence of consciousness or awareness of 'I', to me, is the same of asking why was it I that came into being from the activity of my parents, and not you?

I agree with your point, if I've understood it correctly, the existence of such does not require any reasoning which defines its existence. I hadn't implied so, it was more of a question directed at Pam for the purpose of outlining that (it seemed) she was implying the existence of a caused thing; individual consciousness. (What I see as a necessary and illogical conclusion following the implication that one's existence may come to an end).

Also, it may simply be because I often have a difficult time understanding your syntax, otherwise it's your views, though I'll do my best. I'm not sure if I even grasped the point of the above question correctly. As for that last implication, I disagree that you came into being from the activity of your parents, which has been my point the whole time regarding beginning-less being.

These are the tools you speak about.

I had the same difficulty. Perhaps they are, but I wouldn't attempt describing them or categorizing them in such a fashion.

and though they take one to the utmost point of comprehension, when they get there, they will find not only the life of the thought which placed them there, but consciousness preceded the mind to this destination.

It seems you've just implied a split between consciousness and mind, which is much too far, since I wouldn't even imply there's any distinction between these and reality.(Except in terms of totality vs individual.)

Moreover, the 'I' consciousness will not find the cause of the 'I' consciousness there, why is this? Because one knows not where infinity is not.

I would say that there is no "cause of the 'I' consciousness" at all.

[jufa]

Good morning JohnJ. I appreciate your response to my post, and even your replacement of the word 'creation' for the word 'life' in this matter. However, to void a direct word(s) to mean what is partial to you, you must distinguish the sameness of such substitution by a logical foundation which you have not done.

JohnJ states:

I was replying to this, as it seemed you were asking about what one stands upon to understand 'creation', which I replaced with the word life, as I understand these as the same. I answered that the base upon which it stands is, ironically, what's revealed without a conceptual base, without a grounding. What's 'visible' amongst the void, the truth of one's 'inner-most consciousness'.

This statement of explanation does not explain why 'creation' & 'life'has come to mean one, from you view, when you have not exposed their origin of objectification. This leads me to ask you what is it which you state:

I answered that the base upon which it stands is, ironically, what's revealed without a conceptual base, without a grounding.

. If there is an effect, there must be a cause. Whether it is a concept or not cannot be determined because the cause has not been exposed.

You go on to state:

You implied some things here, making a few assumptions of your own in the process, such as, "because of Something unknown". I disagree that there is any reasoning pointing toward any unknown causes leading to existence, especially any which would have reasoning or intent or purpose or "why".

This is not implied, it is a truth, and a present truth for creation, or life as you would say, is an occurrence the sentient mind cannot even begin to phantom, not only of itself, but individuality of human life forms. It this is not true, then I expect you to bring out what I proclaim to be 'Something unknown', into the known, or that is to say, Objectify the Subject so the sentient mind can explain the origin of creation/life.

JohnJ also stated:

I agree with your point, if I've understood it correctly, the existence of such does not require any reasoning which defines its existence.

You have misunderstood my words by assumption, and failure to see abstract phases do not bear the same interpretation of rule as common syntax does. So allow me to go a little further down the path of clarifying what I have declared of existence, which is there is no logic, nor reason available for the sentient mind to speak on cause and effect of existence because there is no logic for existence to exist which the human mind can define or expose for common understanding.

As far as the structure of the question:

why was it I that came into being from the activity of my parents, and not you?

is asking you to expose what it way that made the distinction for you come from the activity (intercourse) of your parents, and not I? What was it which made you to subject matter of your parents and not me, or Jim, or Sue? There has to be a cause for you to come into life from the life of others as JohnJ. What was it that make for such a distinction is the question?

As far as your assumption that

It seems you've just implied a split between consciousness and mind

then you must display where I have split consciousness from mind, or that is saying, demonstrate, in my proclamation where I have shown when consciousness end and mind begins.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

"we" are the experiential infinite (we are God experiencing God) but that in many cases, the "enlightened" mind then contradicts this realization by declaring "worldly" experiences to be ungodly. What is to elaborate vis a vis the infinity of God? God experiences worlds of hate, love, lust, hope, sex, pain, pleasure, children, farting, cataracts, discontent, contentedness...the list is endless. Are you more God than me or vice versa? Based on the truth of God's infinity, the answer is no.

A nice way to avoid elaboration: "Ignorance is part of the infinite too, we're all equal".

There's nothing ungodly about them, no devil or lower class or anything like that, just suffering, which when understood completely as continuing for an incomprehensible amount of time, the true 'seriousness' of escaping existence is revealed. Hence the relevance of a correct understanding of rebirth.

" [Samsara-the Wheel of Existence, lit., the "Perpetual
Wandering"-is the name by which is designated the sea of life ever
restlessly heaving up and down, the symbol of this continuous
process of ever again and again being born, growing old, suffering,
and dying. More precisely Put: Samsara is the unbroken chain of the
fivefold Khandha-combinations, which, constantly changing from
moment to moment, follow continuously one upon the other through
inconceivable periods of time. Of this Samsara, a single lifetime
constitutes only a vanishingly tiny fraction; hence, to be able to
comprehend the first noble truth, one must let one's gaze rest upon
the Samsara, upon this frightful chain of rebirths, and not merely
upon one single lifetime, which, of course, may be sometimes not
very painful.]
Which do you think is the more: the flood of tears, which weeping
and wailing you have shed upon this long way-hurrying and hastening
through this round of rebirths, united with the undesired, separated
from the desired, or the waters of the four oceans?
Long time have you suffered the death of father and mother, of sons,
daughters, brothers, and sisters. And whilst you were thus
suffering, you have, verily, shed more tears upon this long way than
there is water in the four oceans."

Where can the mind, consciousness, escape to when its nature is, as it always has been, the infinite being finitely expressed? In other words, the totality (of you) has no escape hatch with which to leave you.

This is why I say that realization of the truth of the infinity of things can happen while one is in the world of relationship. Relationship (friendship, parenthood, grandparenthodd, etc.) is a finite expression of the infinite. Another way of saying this is that ultimate reality and conventional reality are not separate. This is how I understand rebirth, the eternal re-appearance of thinking, of forming. Logically, I cannot stop thinking/forming. I can, however, stop desiring forms, the longing to hold onto things. Is not the desire to escape the clinging to the form 'escape?'

In a nutshell, suffering (clinging to things, samsara) happens when there is a forgetting of right view: "I" (the causality, God, existence) am the infinite of all [finite] things. It is worthy to note that the realization of being the infinite of things is the same realization as is that of emptiness (of an enduring self) and the impermanence (of things).

[Pam Seeback]

jufa: The important factor here, in my understanding, is I exist as a conscious of awareness which is because of Something unknown, and which does not reveal it reasoning or intent or purpose to my sentient mind as to cause and effect of Its decision why It did what It did. And what base can my sentient minds stand upon to conceptualize, debate, or even think upon this thing man calls creation? So what is the point of the desire to talk that which one does not know?

I can't speak for all of consciousness, but until I set out to find the reason for my existence, I couldn't experience the reality of the truth that the reason for conscious 'me' can't be known.

As mentioned before, it's all about experiencing truth for oneself. I believe it is important to add that while the reason for existence cannot be known, truths about the nature of existence can be known (realized). And that for many, including me, it is because of these realizations about the nature of existence that one is released from the futile search for the reason for existence. Truths such as there is no fixed, separate self in existence and that things of existence (including thoughts) are finite rather than objective/solid as the ignorant sentient eye illogically assumes.

[jufa]

Pam declares:

it's all about experiencing truth for oneself. I believe it is important to add that while the reason for existence cannot be known, truths about the nature of existence can be known (realized). And that for many, including me, it is because of these realizations about the nature of existence that one is released from the futile search for the reason for existence. Truths such as there is no fixed, separate self in existence and that things of existence (including thoughts) are finite rather than objective/solid as the ignorant sentient eye illogically assumes.

To me it is an exact statement

it's all about experiencing truth for oneself.

for there is nothing else anyone individual can do but experience their living between the arc of birth and death within the parenthesis of sentient being. It is the experience, I have found, that does not include the realized reason of ones nature of why, who, what, where, and when one can merge into immortality because of the term death. This is also applicable to birth.

The issue here is not introspective but more so of conceptual idealism you present when you claim

( I believe it is important to add)

which is the objectification of a nature you cannot define, and therefore cannot connect nor place yourself in a transitory position to judiciously follow which would stability your consciousness and be what you are. So what are you? Please explain.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[JohnJAu]

Where can the mind, consciousness, escape to when its nature is, as it always has been, the infinite being finitely expressed? In other words, the totality (of you) has no escape hatch with which to leave you.

Ignoring that your infinite/finite reasoning here seems too much like conceptual metaphysics or reasoning based on conceiving of reality as some closed system perhaps.

This was one of my original questions on this thread, determining the 'final goal'. These possibilities are derived from personal insight meditation, which interprets the being we all know as the nature of reality.

Firstly 'escaping' or extinguishing existence might simply mean liberation from ego. This I presume is closer to your interpretation, which doesn't imply literal escaping elsewhere as you've written or an end to being, (whether it literally continues life after life or not) but just an end to self-hood. (And thus there is no longer really any 'being born into the world'.)

Second is a literal and complete cessation of form. Perhaps something similar to a deeper meditation, sleep, or unconsciousness. It would in a sense be 'escape from existence' through dissolution. The view being that desire/attachment is the literal cause for the arising of form/rebirth life after life.

Another might be existence without landing/stopping/attaching to any world/form/experience, but with these still arising.

If I were to give an answer right now, I would say that it is the first. The escape being simply an escape from worldliness.

Another way of saying this is that ultimate reality and conventional reality are not separate. This is how I understand rebirth, the eternal re-appearance of thinking, of forming. Logically, I cannot stop thinking/forming. I can, however, stop desiring forms, the longing to hold onto things.

As I understand it that is the same as my first answer. (The difference in our views being that I'd say karmic habit-energy of desiring forms continues life after life, I'd also say that relationship is [if not always] usually an indication of desire and dependence.)

In a nutshell, suffering (clinging to things, samsara) happens when there is a forgetting of right view: ....emptiness (of an enduring self) and the impermanence (of things).

Yes. But just using the word 'forgetting' doesn't outline that it is more than some conceptual understanding, it's a literal noticeable difference in the way in which being continues, after or before one 'forgets'. Samsara is to be immersed or 'drawn in' to illusion/the world, the other has, using purely descriptive terminology for an ineffable topic, 'disengaged'. I would say, even if it is over-used, it is much like the experience of coming to the awareness that you are dreaming. (As impermanence is like this.)

[Pam Seeback]

Pam declares:

it's all about experiencing truth for oneself. I believe it is important to add that while the reason for existence cannot be known, truths about the nature of existence can be known (realized). And that for many, including me, it is because of these realizations about the nature of existence that one is released from the futile search for the reason for existence. Truths such as there is no fixed, separate self in existence and that things of existence (including thoughts) are finite rather than objective/solid as the ignorant sentient eye illogically assumes.

To me it is an exact statement

it's all about experiencing truth for oneself.

for there is nothing else anyone individual can do but experience their living between the arc of birth and death within the parenthesis of sentient being. It is the experience, I have found, that does not include the realized reason of ones nature of why, who, what, where, and when one can merge into immortality because of the term death. This is also applicable to birth.

The issue here is not introspective but more so of conceptual idealism you present when you claim

( I believe it is important to add)

which is the objectification of a nature you cannot define, and therefore cannot connect nor place yourself in a transitory position to judiciously follow which would stability your consciousness and be what you are. So what are you? Please explain.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

I am the infinite writing to the infinite. I use finite things with which to say what I am.

In pointing out that I used the term "I believe", you made me aware that in that moment, I was not expressing my absolute nature. Thank you. The truths of no inherent self and the finite nature of things following "I believe" then stand on their own merit.

[Pam Seeback]

John: Firstly 'escaping' or extinguishing existence might simply mean liberation from ego. This I presume is closer to your interpretation, which doesn't imply literal escaping elsewhere as you've written or an end to being, (whether it literally continues life after life or not) but just an end to self-hood. (And thus there is no longer really any 'being born into the world'.)

Bingo.

:-)

[JohnJAu]

Bingo.

Perhaps, tho today I'd lean more toward the other possibilities I gave, and remain uncertain.

Irregardless, many of the practices would be similar, such as mindfulness meditation.

This was all mostly evident from the start of the conversation tho, there's still been no elaboration on your views in regard to death. To me they seem absurd, and from that perspective most of the wisdom spoken about here would be nearly useless, especially in old age, since you'd expect being itself to end soon.

[Pam Seeback]

John: This was all mostly evident from the start of the conversation tho, there's still been no elaboration on your views in regard to death. To me they seem absurd, and from that perspective most of the wisdom spoken about here would be nearly useless, especially in old age, since you'd expect being itself to end soon.

I have elaborated on death as I understand death to be, which is the concept of rebirth, a dynamic, ever-changing process of the infinite. My body and thoughts are a part of this dynamic process, as I understand yours to be also. How one interprets this ever-changing process of the infinite will effect how they view what is yet to come in relation to what was and what is.

We were speaking of desire earlier, a concept directly related to this thread. I found this quote from Krishnamurti this morning::

"When there is a total understanding of need, the outward and the inner, then desire is not a torture. Then it has quite a different meaning, a significance far beyond the content of thought and it goes beyond feeling, with its emotions, myths and illusions. With the total understanding of need, not the mere quantity or the quality of it, desire then is a flame and not a torture. Without this flame, life itself is lost. It is this flame that burns away the pettiness of its object, its frontiers, the fences that have been imposed upon it. Then call it by whatever name you will, love, death, beauty. Then it is there without an end."

I am in accord with Krishnamurti on his wisdom of desire as an eternal flame (in contrast with desire expressed as an emotional need for things.) It cannot be denied that within consciousness there is an energy present that insists on manifestation beyond the five sense consciousness' (nature, body), that of thought. For me, while I relate to the need for Krishnamurti to name the thought aspect of the flame of desire 'love' or 'beauty' (it appeals to heart, aesthetics), I can see that it could also be called 'reasoning' or 'analysis.' I don't know if Krishnamurti goes into the idea of reasoning as an eternal flame, perhaps he does.

The idea of the desire flame of life as being one of love/beauty and reasoning, heart and mind as one, what say you (or anyone?)

[JohnJAu]

I have elaborated on death as I understand death to be, which is the concept of rebirth, a dynamic, ever-changing process of the infinite. My body and thoughts are a part of this dynamic process, as I understand yours to be also. How one interprets this ever-changing process of the infinite will effect how they view what is yet to come in relation to what was and what is.

You've not even attempted to reason it out, I couldn't imagine a more vague description. Obviously it's part of the infinite. Obviously how one 'interprets' it will effect how they view what is yet to come.

So far the totality of your presented reasoning has been: The appearance of body is part of the ever-changing 'process' of the infinite...*unfilled gap*... therefore when the body passes being itself may come to an end, but let's just talk about love.

The connection it seems you imagine the body has as a cause to your existence is just that, nothing more than an imagination. Also, the way in which you speak of the infinite constantly seems to suggest a material reality part of which has temporarily coalesced forming body/mind, which would be another delusion.

As for Buddhist doctrine, it seems clear the Buddha's stance on this subject:

"Realizing that this body is like froth, penetrating
its mirage-like nature, and plucking out Mara’s
flower-tipped arrows of sensuality, go beyond
sight of the King of Death!"

"As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village,
so death carries away the person of distracted mind
who only plucks the flowers of pleasure."

Will get back to you on the second part of your comment tomorrow.

[Pam Seeback]

John: The connection it seems you imagine the body has as a cause to your existence is just that, nothing more than an imagination. Also, the way in which you speak of the infinite constantly seems to suggest a material reality part of which has temporarily coalesced forming body/mind, which would be another delusion.

Your reasoning of how I understand the infinite and causation simply reinforces for me once again that you are reasoning according to your prejudices of how you believe I understand the infinite to be and not how I am actually reasoning it to be. This chronic rather large gap between my actual understanding and your perception of my understanding is making for an unfruitful connection of minds. If it continues, it would be beneficial for both of us (for now) to cease our communication.

I will try once more to give you my reasoning of causality and the infinite and (briefly) how one attains to 'its' realization:

1. The Causality and the Infinite are one and the same. The Causality causes the body as it causes everything of which Man is aware.

2. So to realize one's identity as The Causality or The Infinite, one must go within the silence of their conditioned thoughts of self, which include all attachments to isms such as religion, culture, nationality, etc.

3. When one has released their attachments to their worldly identity (all labels of self), they then reason and love free of these self-labels and the multitude of worlds of thought associated with them.

I request, for the sake of truth, that when you provide the second part of your answer that it reflects points 1 - 3.

[JohnJAu]

The Causality causes the body as it causes everything of which Man is aware.

It also causes cats, but I doubt you'd reason a possible end to your being (or unknown)when one of those comes to dissolution, hence my presumption that you've necessarily implied the body as a dependent causal factor for your being. (I'm intentionally using the word being here over 'consciousness'.)

Furthermore, there is no body. This is not a metaphor, an analogy, a reference to the lack of self-existent things, or to impermanence.

I'm not sure how to elucidate the truth of this statement enough for you to realize its literal accuracy, if you haven't already, but neither does the world exist. It's a truth which one realizes more and more with the lessening of conditioned familiarity, preconceived notions, or karmic residue of attachments which usually arise with the experiences of concept, thought, memory, sensation, identity, the appearance of knowledge, etc.

Without the stringing together ("weaving") of sequential observations/experiences, these forms are not distinguished as existing, and it is no longer reasonable to come to such conclusions. More than that, the non-existence of these things is literally noticeable through insight meditation.

There is literally nothing to see but emptiness/void. Causality is a provisional term, it's relevance ought to be only in the consideration of one's own wisdom-progression. In regards to the world of illusion/mirage, it is also only illusion/mirage.

"The man who is without blind faith, who knows
the Uncreate, who has severed all links, destroyed
all causes, and thrown out all desires
he, truly, is the most excellent of men."

The idea of the desire flame of life as being one of love/beauty and reasoning, heart and mind as one, what say you?

While Krishnamurti displays plenty of wisdom and insight in some matters, he comes off as somewhat feminine. My understanding is that the masculine does not experience love as the word is defined. To describe this difference you might look at the different ways in which a woman feels about a child compared to a man. For example a strong contrast to that femininity would be poison for the heart.

Another example would be this contrast: when a girl is asked to recall an event, she will describe how she felt during it and speak about all those feelings as existent, whereas a guy will usually dis-identify from any feelings that might have arisen, and even deny they existed at all.

'Love', whenever it is spoken of as anything other than in action, is in my view, a feminine word, and it is inauthentic. Like you, many 'wisdom'-speakers try and change its meaning and connotations, the same way one might do with the word God, it has no meaning so one can pretend it means whatever they like.

Logic elucidating this point, is that any true 'act of love' would necessarily be one of sharing wisdom and support toward that goal, the masculine ought not be interested in loving "affection", as Krishnamurti describes, tenderness perhaps as expedient means. Just look at the contrast between that and some of the Buddha's teachings which I'll quote below, or someone like Diogenes. I can understand 'love' as a compassionate act, not as any feeling or experience. (Aside from a delusional one of course.)

Many of the qualities Krishnamurti describes are very often the things which would prevent wisdom growth and allow the sort of sloppiness, worldliness and laziness that don't bring about diligence, solitude, and deep penetration of the truth.

Though I expect you knew of this apparent contradiction, or at least how these words might be received, (when using words like love, beauty, desire, etc) hence why further explanation would have been useful and the need of it should have been more easily predictable.

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from
the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those
who have nothing beloved or unloved."

"From affection springs grief, from affection
springs fear. From him who is wholly free from
affection there is no grief, whence then fear?"

Would children be exempt for convenience?

"As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
so death seizes and carries away the man with a
clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle."

"He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has
renounced the household life and become a
homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire
and continued existence – him do I call a holy man."

As for the quote itself and your own words on it, there's little reasoning to illuminate much deeper wisdom in it if it exists.

It's true that without the flame life itself is lost, but it ought to be lost. It's true desire burns away the pettiness of its object, but usually because of the blinding nature of it, one who is allured and acting out of immediacy does not find fault or boundary. There ought to be no interest in beauty. It's true the flame of desire for thought can lead to plenty of reasoning/analysis and eventually wisdom. Desire may eventually turn into the desire to end suffering. Other than that I fail to relate to the quote or your description, along with some other things you've referenced like mystical love.

[Pam Seeback]

John: There is literally nothing to see but emptiness/void.

Since 'emptiness/void' implies nothing to see, you could have simply left your statement as 'there is literally nothing to see.' The way you spoke of awareness is as if emptiness/void is an object.

It is not true that there is literally nothing to see. There is everything to see. Seeing and awareness are one activity. Same with hearing, tasting, smelling and touching. Did you not see my post before answering?

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from
the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those
who have nothing beloved or unloved."

Therefore hold everything dear; for separation from everything is impossible. There are no bonds for those to whom all is beloved.

"He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has
renounced the household life and become a
homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire
and continued existence – him do I call a holy man."

He who has abandoned the idea of selfhood is homeless of self and has destroyed his continued thinking of "me." Such a holy man lives in the world yet is not of the world.

[JohnJAu]

Since 'emptiness/void' implies nothing to see, you could have simply left your statement as 'there is literally nothing to see.' The way you spoke of awareness is as if emptiness/void is an object.

Alright: There is literally nothing to see, there is only emptiness/void.

It is not true that there is literally nothing to see. There is everything to see. Seeing and awareness are one activity. Same with hearing, tasting, smelling and touching. Did you not see my post before answering?

It's the truth you seemingly ought to hear. The opposite end of the existence/non-existence dichotomy which only becomes a problem when one chooses unwise action because one leans toward a side. You apparently lean toward the existence of family/love/world/everything. In your case, it's much closer to non-existence, since it seems you actually imply these things literally continue/endure in some fashion.

I definitely did not see your post before answering. Again, I wonder if you have seen the literal destruction of the universe.

All that exists for you (in the possible realm of your knowledge) is you/your experience/everything of your awareness/your individual being. True?
Therefore all that exists for you is you.
Therefore, for you, all that exists is you.
Therefore all that exists is you.
Therefore you are the totality of all reality. (For you)
Therefore you are the totality of all reality, the singular God/Lord of creation.
Get it?
Therefore nothing exists. (Save of course for the attempt at weaving together moment by moment, shallow, dream-like, sequential, blurry, wavering mirage-like forms.)

Therefore your kids exist as much as my imagination of gumbee.
Same with the body.
Oops gumbee just died...Yet I'm still here?

Would I daily imagine gumbee and spend hours feeding/teaching/talking to him? That would be insane wouldn't it?

No family, no world, no post on the forum, no death.

Keeping even my own body intact in my view may be due to ignorance (it only occurs because of ignorance; existence and rebirth only continues because of ignorance), in some ineffable attempt to attain greater powers of concentration or secure good karma/habit-energy before bodily disappearance. (In the case that the details of worldly existence have greater causal ties to wisdom growth.) That's one possibility. I am uncertain on the degrees/possible variances of this view/ on the final wise goal and reaching it. Either way it would be illogical to do so for other beings/kids.

Therefore hold everything dear; for separation from everything is impossible. There are no bonds for those to whom all is beloved.

Why would one do any 'holding' at all? For what reason or purpose would your sentence be relevant, since bliss is a natural consequence of non-desire. No need to bring holding anything or feeling-love into it again. It seems like a gap in reasoning to me.

He who has abandoned the idea of selfhood is homeless of self and has destroyed his continued thinking of "me." Such a holy man lives in the world yet is not of the world.

I wonder why the words 'renounced the household life' were used then.

[Pam Seeback]

John, you acknowledged that absolute reality and conventional reality (names) are not separate realities which means the name 'family', ''son, 'grandson' do exist when they are being spoken by the absolute self. Any name I say comes into existence the moment I say it. As is any action done the moment I do it. So you are correct in saying I am that I am the totality, of which are all My Names. Give up the household life if you believe you must do so in order to realize absolute/eternal self, I did not do so.

[Pam Seeback]

To expand a little, the absolute self feeds the child when it needs feeding. The absolute self feeds the child unconditionally, with full attention, no wandering mind thinking of other things it might rather be doing. Just as they absolute self buys milk and relieves itself. The absolute self is present as to the immediate needs of the absolute.

[Pam Seeback]

I was using my phone while travelling on the train so could not be as detailed as I wanted to be in my answer to you.

Perhaps this verse from the Tao te Ching can help better explain what | mean by being in the world while being realized of the absolute:

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery.

Note that the named, "family", "dog", "cat", "daughter", "body", etc. is one with the nameless, they emerge together. This is the absolute and conventional, the unobservable law of nature and its observable things. Note also the understanding of 'desire', how when the one realized of their absolute nature (referenced by the term 'constantly') observes the nameless, desire is not present, but when one realized of their absolute nature observes the named, the Tao's manifestations, desire is present. The nameless is formless, the named, its forms. Which means things are seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, analyzed - desired - if they were not, the named Tao would not appear.

Where things get muddled and mucked up is when observation happens in ignorance of the eternal Tao and instead, there is wrong view of annihilation of things. Therefore, you are correct, there is no death.