Impermanence and meaning

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:26 pm

Glostik, we do not share the same definition of permanence. Where you equate the concept of permanence with the truth, I equate it with the concept of unchanging form, which of course is wrong view. As I stated before, although truths such as 1 + 1 = 2 are fixed truths, they are meaningless until they are a part and parcel of subjective, ever-changing (impermanent) form analysis.

Therefore by your definition of permanence (a truth) I do not reason that attachment to permanence is delusional, and even though an argument could be made that attachment as a principle is delusional (i.e., it is illogical for the infinite/existence to attach itself to its forms), I accept attachment to be a logical condition of consciousness (existence desires manifestation), therefore, from the perspective of existential desire, impermanence/attachment is not delusional.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:05 am

JohnJAu wrote:..but I heavily reason and lean toward the former; that there can be no arising of form at all without the accompaniment of the arising of suffering.
You lean towards it because you lean to truth: arising of form is only possible through a fundamental attachment to its rise, some (subconscious) will or desire for it if you will, with in its wake a root ignorance stemming out the nature of this attachment. This is then the root cause of all suffering, in all its noticeably and unnoticeable, voiced and unvoiced ways.

What to do with this wisdom? Understanding the ultimate source of suffering, the ever-giving fountain supplying new and more intricate varieties on suffering to us in what seems to be at times random, other times steered -- is never going to be resolved in the world of form. This includes what most people conceive as "self" and its rights, duties, births and deaths.

The understanding will not bring power, escape, control or any direct solution for anything specific. But it might take the wind out of the sails of a few delusions one has going, freeing up the space to grow in whatever direction his nature will dictate.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:04 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: This sounds like having cake and wanting to eat it too. Nothing sticks (endures from moment to moment) except...
Nothing endures from moment to moment at all(save for the qualities of existence). I'm sure you agree on that.

It's just that, while the previous domino does not follow the next along the chain, the momentum and direction still goes on.
You make the absolute statement that all forms are fleeting and then, back pedal
The nature of causality is not a form and is not fleeting.
How else would you reason a way out of suffering if suffering is obviously part and parcel to existence?
I no longer reason a way out of suffering, reasoning and suffering are inseparable.

....
To be conscious is to be attached to form, therefore, to be conscious is to suffer. [/quote]

I agree, hence my conclusion that the only logical option is to seek the end of existence/rebirth/consciousness of form.

Even if it were so unlikely, it still makes more sense to seek this unlikely possibility than to accept that you will be subject to endless suffering and presume there's nothing that can end it.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:17 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
What to do with this wisdom?
Attempt to end suffering, if there is even a slight possibility, it is better to forever attempt to escape suffering rather than accept endless suffering.

People over complicate suffering:
Pam Seeback wrote:Stress is the measurement gauge of the intensity of an attachment. When stress is acknowledged to be intense, an intense attachment (suffering) is present (usually to the idea of self-at-centre), with the reverse also being true, if subtle stress is present, a subtle attachment is present. Does the presence of subtle stress cause suffering? Obviously that answer is a subjective one, but of my body-awareness, I say no,
With sensation it is inevitable that pain will arise, which is suffering, it's also inevitable that stress will arise of different intensities, as well as things like hunger, exhaustion, discomfort, a plane crashing into your house and cutting off your hands tomorrow, and the other myriad forms of suffering of which causality dictates and you have no say in.

Following the logic that existence is endless as long as there is desire for existence, therefore concludes that over time one will inevitably also be subject via causality to great and extreme suffering ("although some lifetimes might not be so bad").

This is why one's understanding of metaphysics/life and death is always a deciding factor in how one ought to live.

I see it somewhat as a necessary attempt to escape existence by (theoretically) extinguishing the desire for existence, because existence is at least sometimes literally "hellish".

I also think it is a common tendency to over exaggerate the degree of our own wisdom and even that of the wisest people. (Whoever they are.)
This can be known via introspection but it seems to me more authentic to say that:
We are more like ignorant children (of The All) wanting to avoid pain, than any "wise geniuses".

We consider the greatest wisdom to be the one which seems to offer the highest logical/rational likelihood of less or no suffering.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:23 am

I do not understand sensation pain to be suffering, unless of course there is no way to be found to relieve it or end it, so right out of the gate we have a different definition of suffering. Suffering to me is the belief that pain, either psychological or physical is permanent. To be conscious, to me, is to experience sensation, therefore, at times also to experience pain. Luckily causality shows the way to relieve it or end it.

Is it your understanding/desire that consciousness cut itself off from sensation so to be pain free? If so, I would define this as magical thinking.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:49 am

Pam Seeback wrote:unless of course there is no way to be found to relieve it or end it,
That displays some delusion right there, that you have power over causality. If the infinite deems you experience long term and extreme pain, you will experience it. Hence my view that endless existence would be hellish.
Pam Seeback wrote: Suffering to me is the belief
Suffering to you is a belief?... How disconnected from reality(truth) are you? Do you really think suffering is the result of some belief? It is obviously just an experience which will arise likely for as long as there is experience.
Pam Seeback wrote: Is it your understanding/desire that consciousness cut itself off from sensation so to be pain free? If so, I would define this as magical thinking.

"Master,
how is Knowledge to be achieved,
detachment acquired,liberation attained?

Ashtavakra said:
To be free,
shun the experiences of the senses
like poison."

Pretty much! Except I do accept the possibility that no such cutting off from sensation is even achievable; perhaps some great detachment, egolessness, mindfulness, etc, is enough to get the job done.

The world is nothing but a dream, it is totally unreal, like this conversation, it's an absolute illusion thought to be depicting existing things only due to deluded clinging and egotism. It's so obvious there is nothing here worthy of continuation, this very conversation borders on being some weird existential insanity if there really was some ego/identity behind it to be labeled such, like talking to oneself.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:45 pm

John, there is no separation between the causality and
consciousness so I definitely do not have any power over it because I, a separate something, don't exist. This is the difference between how we understand the Tao/God, where you see The Tao/God AND man, people, human, etc. I only see God/Tao causing/appearing as consciousness.

Logic reveals there is only one power in the universe and it is illogical for consciousness to be separated from that one power even for a nanosecond. Perhaps you believe you realize this truth after death, perhaps not, but I, consciousness of The Causality, The Infinite, The Father, The Tao, realize it now.

Absolutely no separation, that's the deal.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:02 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: where you see The Tao/God AND man, people, human, etc. I only see God/Tao causing/appearing as consciousness.

I agree there is no separation, I see the Tao/God AND among the Tao/God and of the Tao/God is delusion, suffering, egotism, etc.

But there is "individuated 'experience'" arising among/of the Tao/God. Otherwise there would not be my experience and your experience. Don't step too far away from the blatant reality of that.

Pam Seeback wrote:illogical for consciousness to be separated from that one power even for a nanosecond.
Indeed consciousness is that one power. I don't imply a separation, just that the only way suffering could ever end is if the arising of form ended.

I.E, if unconsciousness is possible, or some meditation where bodily/worldly form doesn't arise, then why is it impossible that such could come about indefinitely? Is that not preferable to suffering?

The point is that if it were impossible like you're implying (which seems illogical since you agreed there is no suffering during 'unconsciousness'), but if it were impossible and there was really no end to suffering, then it is still logical to try to find an end to suffering anyway, continuing as if it were possible, since anything less is insanity. This is coming from the view that one's existence continues life after life and therefore there will be an incomprehensible amount of suffering.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:29 am

No, there is not individuated experiences, that is the illusion, wake up man! :-). 'Me' and 'you' are part of conventional reality, the naming of things. Also, the 'arising' of form is also an illusion. Be silent for a moment and observe for yourself that form doesn't move. It is the belief that form moves that causes the idea of a 'stream of consciousness' that continues. That's why it is said "Be still and know I am God.'

Be still and see if what I say is not true, and if you do discover the truth that form does not arise/move, by your own words you have found the way out of suffering and the way to show others how to do the same.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:45 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:No, there is not individuated experiences, that is the illusion, wake up man! :-). 'Me' and 'you' are part of conventional reality, the naming of things.
It's got nothing to do with naming, or language, or even differentiation. experience is individuated, you're denying an obvious reality in favor of mumbo jumbo. The All only ever being the All does not mean individuated experience is not possible.
Pam Seeback wrote: Also, the 'arising' of form is also an illusion.
Of course it is, haven't I been saying that the whole time?
Pam Seeback wrote: that form doesn't move.
You seem to get so out of touch with reality that it's a little worrying. What is "form" here? Some backwards definition which again you've twisted to deny the blatant truth?

To make it obvious, 'experience' is. 'Experience' is always changing, there's no debate here.

I think what you mean is that any 'Self' doesn't move. God/reality doesn't move. Yes? "Be still and know I am God". God is reality, not a witness but reality itself, always present, never changing, never moving. What you seemingly fail to realize over and over is that you exist (The fact that I have to tell you that!?) and you are one with God, reality, clearly not 'a stream of consciousness'. You are the unmoving(it's funny that your username was movingalways by the way) and uncreated.

I'm talking about the possibility of extinguishing the desire for existence here (egotism), not extinguishing God.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:29 am

John: It's got nothing to do with naming, or language, or even differentiation. experience is individuated, you're denying an obvious reality in favor of mumbo jumbo. The All only ever being the All does not mean individuated experience is not possible.
Mumbo jumbo is a handy catch-all phrase when understanding is absent.

In your last comment in your post, you said you are interested in ending desire for existence, egotism. What do you think 'individuated experience' is if not egotism? The definition of experience, Merriam Webster: "the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you. : skill or knowledge that you get by doing something."

Which is true: do things happen to God (the infinite), does the infinite do things or get things, or does the infinite cause things? If a concept must be used to suggest the temporal (local) nature of causation, then rather than the infinite-splitting concept of individuated experience, I would suggest the concept of subjective reasoning, definition of reasoning, Merriam Webster: "the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason". No doing things or getting things or thinking of things (as per the definition of experience) rather, thinking things.
You seem to get so out of touch with reality that it's a little worrying. What is "form" here? Some backwards definition which again you've twisted to deny the blatant truth?

To make it obvious, 'experience' is. 'Experience' is always changing, there's no debate here.
I assure you I am not out of touch with reality, so stop worrying, it's keeping desire for experience alive in your consciousness. 'Form' is just another word for 'thing'.

As per the definition provided above, "'experience' is", is not true.
I think what you mean is that any 'Self' doesn't move. God/reality doesn't move. Yes? "Be still and know I am God". God is reality, not a witness but reality itself, always present, never changing, never moving. What you seemingly fail to realize over and over is that you exist (The fact that I have to tell you that!?) and you are one with God, reality, clearly not 'a stream of consciousness'. You are the unmoving (it's funny that your username was movingalways by the way) and uncreated.
It is you who spoke of 'being' a stream of consciousness, life after life, not I. I am not one with God, my I is God's I, it appears naturally as a part of thinking things, there is a big difference in the two understandings. It is interesting that you want to cease desire for existence, but you continue to insist that you and I exist.
I'm talking about the possibility of extinguishing the desire for existence here (egotism), not extinguishing God.
Then for God's sake, make it happen! Right here, right now, stop believing the delusion that there is a you that experiences things as if I am here and things are there. You, God, The Causality are infinite, no? Then, you, God, The Causality, the infinite, ask yourself this logical question: Why am I desiring to get my things, to have my things, to experience my things, when I am all things?

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:52 am

Pam Seeback wrote: but you continue to insist that you and I exist.
You over complicate things and leave reality behind in favor of intricate delusions based in imaginations and language as opposed to what is clearly true in reality.

A dream-like existence "is", is what I meant by experience. How could that possibly be denied?

Otherwise coming off as deluded saying "There's no experience, there's just the infinite. You mistook reality for 'experience'".

"Dream" (referring to the only known reality). That's all that can even be alluded to, let alone known or imagined or seen or recognized or comprehended.

If that dream continues, suffering continues. (They're the very same thing)
If it can end, that's great, then suffering would end.

Pam Seeback wrote: Then, you, God, The Causality, the infinite, ask yourself this logical question: Why am I desiring to get my things, to have my things, to experience my things, when I am all things?
If I am God, the causality, the infinite, then the same applies anyway, God, the causality, the infinite, is ensnared by Maya, illusion of existence, egotism, suffering. Why should it make a difference what I am or what words used to describe it? Honestly you're making communication impossible. Suffering won't magically end because you're telling me the word I'm using for it is wrong. Suffering is an undeniable reality despite any thought/language/delusion/belief.

You tell me what word you'd like to use to refer to that which goes on when there's breakfast or a dream or sensation or suffering, call it experience, call it infinite, call it thinking, call it god, call it gobly gook, call it nothing, what does it matter, just stop screwing with language and over complicating to insanity while trying to talk.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:31 pm

JohnJAu wrote:Why should it make a difference what I am or what words used to describe it?
Because it makes all the difference! Those differences are also qualitative: one cannot step over and remain consistent.

The danger lies here in boiling everything down "ad infinitum" -- not to solve anything but to escape any undesired consequence, to escape any suffering which comes with things (signifiers) being different, changing, ambiguous and a friction unto one-self. To step over challenges put forward: challenges raised to ones very existence, ones functioning, values and truthfulness.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:35 pm

Not if you can't even refer to being without getting told there's no such thing.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The danger lies here in boiling everything down "ad infinitum" -- not to solve anything but to escape any undesired consequence,
This is what I see Pam as having done with the fact that there is individuated experience, being, existence. Boiled down (or up?) to the infinite/god and then denied.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:59 am

John: "Dream" (referring to the only known reality). That's all that can even be alluded to, let alone known or imagined or seen or recognized or comprehended.

If that dream continues, suffering continues. (They're the very same thing)
If it can end, that's great, then suffering would end.
Since you equate the dream with the only known reality, then it would seem that you also equate the dream ending when the known reality ends. Just how do you propose to achieve this task when all you have at your command is the known reality?
If I am God, the causality, the infinite, then the same applies anyway, God, the causality, the infinite, is ensnared by Maya, illusion of existence, egotism, suffering. Why should it make a difference what I am or what words used to describe it? Honestly you're making communication impossible. Suffering won't magically end because you're telling me the word I'm using for it is wrong. Suffering is an undeniable reality despite any thought/language/delusion/belief.
Definitions matter because they drive logic and logic drives realization. So you are wrong when you say that suffering is a reality despite any (reasoning of, italics mine) thought/language/delusion/belief. I presented a logical question based on a dictionary definition of 'experience' and instead of addressing the logic presented to help end the dream, you chose to brush it aside and make it personal, thereby keeping the dream alive. You speak of habits you must practice, I assume to end the dream, the only habit you need is to question the logic of having the dream. No other habit is required, but of course, this requires, to use Diebert's phrase, caring and being invested in the habit of logic.

Of course God is ensnared by Maya, but if God refuses to reason logically the why and how of Maya using precision of definition, he will fail to wake up.
You tell me what word you'd like to use to refer to that which goes on when there's breakfast or a dream or sensation or suffering, call it experience, call it infinite, call it thinking, call it god, call it gobly gook, call it nothing, what does it matter, just stop screwing with language and over complicating to insanity while trying to talk.
As I see it, you want to preach, not use logic. Give me your logic of the dream, the waking up, the sustaining of the waking up and then maybe we'll have that honest conversation you so desire.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by JohnJAu » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:57 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: Since you equate the dream with the only known reality, then it would seem that you also equate the dream ending when the known reality ends. Just how do you propose to achieve this task when all you have at your command is the known reality?
So you do agree I can refer to life/existence/experience/consciousness/being/sensation somehow. Thanks for allowing that Pam, it was really started to seem like you were denying any of that exists at all! "The dream" is really a great way to reference it if we're being honest, because that is what it resembles and it is an easy and shared notion.

First off, the dream is the only known reality, you already know that, nothing can be known beyond or outside it, even if such exists.

"I" cannot achieve the task because "I" do not exist; reality/causality does ;)
I.E, 'the dream' plays out on its own.

Tho there is the feeling/sense of free will, it does seem to be just another egotistical illusion doesn't it.

Presuming that is true, 'enlightenment', or even any wisdom at all, will only come about via chance/providence/fate/destiny/causality.

The logic continued tho explains that "God", being ensnared and suffering, will eventually inevitably find wisdom through dispassion.
I.E, the desire for existence inevitably burns out.
The illusion of egotism is eventually known as illusion.

Just because it seems paradoxical when you think about it doesn't mean anything, and that's why an over attachment to language and definition can be so dangerous. The truth that it is 'dream' is undeniable if living in the one reality, it is only deniable in thought, i.e, living in the ten thousand realities and delusions.

Of course God is ensnared by Maya, but if God refuses to reason logically the why and how of Maya using precision of definition, he will fail to wake up.
God wakes up on his own, after recognizing that existence is suffering, talking is if anything a hindrance. It is only useful if this view is wrong, and I accept the possibility that it is wrong. Your precision of definition was not precision but confusion, obviously I'm aware the word 'experience' implies all sorts of undesirable things, but it doesn't have to be taken that way and it's obvious how it was being used, I'm more than happy to refer to 'the dream' if that is more precise to you. Language in itself is meaningless, in terms of wisdom its only purpose is in its usefulness, if it ends up being more useful to refer to everything by way of a metaphor about mice elephants and clouds, then that is what we should do.

My complaint tho really was about your contradictory actions; all at once you continuously refuse to accept that there is individuated dreaming, implying that any differentiation is illogical as the infinte/God/causality is The All/One/Undifferentiated, and then simultaneously you break everything down so 'precisely' into 'thoughts'/'delusions'/'logic'/'reason'/'doing'/'causing'/'thinking things' vs 'thinking of things'/"my I is God's I"/'conventional'/'form doesn't move'.

Sorry but...didn't you just say there's nothing but God that can be spoken of?

"Can't have your cake and eat it too."


Give me your logic of the dream, the waking up, the sustaining of the waking up and then maybe we'll have that honest conversation you so desire.
Dream=Dream=Suffering

Dream dream dream = suffering suffering suffering

meditation =less or no sensation=less or no consciousness of form = less or no suffering

habit =perpetuated habit

make habit of meditation =less or no sensation=less or no consciousness of form= make habit of less or no suffering

Hope habit leads to complete cessation of dream.

That's that entire theory as I see it, life really is that simple.



Another theory:

dream dream dream = suffering suffering suffering

mindfulness = less suffering and less egotistical delusion

habit= perpetuated habit

make habit of mindfulness =perpetuated habit of less suffering and less egotistical delusion

Hope that habit sticks and leads to cessation of suffering (or at least) of egotistical delusion

(That is your theory summed up, is it not?)

I think it is! Hence some evidence here demonstrating that you should learn to communicate as well as me ;)

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:17 am

Pam: Since you equate the dream with the only known reality, then it would seem that you also equate the dream ending when the known reality ends. Just how do you propose to achieve this task when all you have at your command is the known reality?
John: So you do agree I can refer to life/existence/experience/consciousness/being/sensation somehow. Thanks for allowing that Pam, it was really started to seem like you were denying any of that exists at all!
But consciousness doesn't actually exist, does it, that's what makes it seems like a dream. If it actually existed, it would be an objective reality. I know you don't like to be exact in your language, but this is why we get into hot water when we dialogue. Dog does not mean cat, dog means dog.

I fully acknowledge the dream-like quality of consciousness because of the truth of impermanence, however the concept is too loosey-gooesy for my liking.
"The dream" is really a great way to reference it if we're being honest, because that is what it resembles and it is an easy and shared notion.
"The dream" may be a great way to reference it for you because it is easy, and I do understand its reference, but for me, what is definitive trumps what is easy. In this case, 'impermanence' is a superior concept to 'the dream' as it leaves no room for misinterpretation.
First off, the dream is the only known reality, you already know that, nothing can be known beyond or outside it, even if such exists.

"I" cannot achieve the task because "I" do not exist; reality/causality does ;)
I.E, 'the dream' plays out on its own.

Tho there is the feeling/sense of free will, it does seem to be just another egotistical illusion doesn't it.

Presuming that is true, 'enlightenment', or even any wisdom at all, will only come about via chance/providence/fate/destiny/causality.

The logic continued tho explains that "God", being ensnared and suffering, will eventually inevitably find wisdom through dispassion.
I.E, the desire for existence inevitably burns out.
The illusion of egotism is eventually known as illusion.
God finds wisdom through dispassion because passion is the clinging to permanence. Do we see eye to eye on this point?
Just because it seems paradoxical when you think about it doesn't mean anything, and that's why an over attachment to language and definition can be so dangerous.
Only if the attachment is of ignorance, not of wisdom. I see a greater danger in your preference for 'easy' than mine for exactness in reference to finding wisdom.
The truth that it is 'dream' is undeniable if living in the one reality, it is only deniable in thought, i.e, living in the ten thousand realities and delusions.
Yes, impermanence is undeniable.
Pam: Of course God is ensnared by Maya, but if God refuses to reason logically the why and how of Maya using precision of definition, he will fail to wake up.
John: God wakes up on his own, after recognizing that existence is suffering, talking is if anything a hindrance. It is only useful if this view is wrong, and I accept the possibility that it is wrong. Your precision of definition was not precision but confusion, obviously I'm aware the word 'experience' implies all sorts of undesirable things, but it doesn't have to be taken that way and it's obvious how it was being used, I'm more than happy to refer to 'the dream' if that is more precise to you.
Impermanence is the most precise to me.
Language in itself is meaningless, in terms of wisdom its only purpose is in its usefulness, if it ends up being more useful to refer to everything by way of a metaphor about mice elephants and clouds, then that is what we should do.
Why do you equate usefulness with meaninglessness? To me, the opposite is true, useful = meaningful. Also it simply is not true that wisdom refers to everything by way of a metaphor about mice and elephants and clouds. Perhaps for a beginner, yes, but for those in big-boy pants, metaphors are rejected in favor of hard core truthful language such as form is impermanent.
My complaint tho really was about your contradictory actions; all at once you continuously refuse to accept that there is individuated dreaming, implying that any differentiation is illogical as the infinte/God/causality is The All/One/Undifferentiated, and then simultaneously you break everything down so 'precisely' into 'thoughts'/'delusions'/'logic'/'reason'/'doing'/'causing'/'thinking things' vs 'thinking of things'/"my I is God's I"/'conventional'/'form doesn't move'.
If you are referring to my questioning of your concept of 'individuated dreaming' as a denial of differentiation, then I see where you came to believe what you believe, but my questioning of your use of the concept of 'individuated dreaming' was not a denial of differentiation, instead it was a denial of the existence of a dreamer, as in individual. Yeah, yeah, there goes Pam again, being so darn definition-picky. :-)
Quote:
Pam: Give me your logic of the dream, the waking up, the sustaining of the waking up and then maybe we'll have that honest conversation you so desire.
I've provided logic in tandem with your dream-speak:
John: Dream=Dream=Suffering
Clinging to the fallacy of permanence=suffering
Dream dream dream = suffering suffering suffering
The greater is the clinging to permanence, the greater is the suffering
meditation =less or no sensation=less or no consciousness of form = less or no suffering
Because consciousness = distinctions, it is not possible to be conscious of no sensation or form, the inner-hearing of the beating of your heart during meditation should be evidence of this truth. What can be caused, however, is the realization that sensation/form is impermanent and that when the realization of impermanence is complete, attachment to form ends, therefore suffering ends. The glory of the truth of impermanence is that it is true in all possible worlds, sensation being but one possible world.
habit =perpetuated habit

make habit of meditation =less or no sensation=less or no consciousness of form= make habit of less or no suffering

Hope habit leads to complete cessation of dream.
What does hope have to do with the logic of impermanence? Either there is knowledge that things are impermanent or there is not.
That's that entire theory as I see it, life really is that simple.

Another theory:

dream dream dream = suffering suffering suffering

mindfulness = less suffering and less egotistical delusion

habit= perpetuated habit

make habit of mindfulness =perpetuated habit of less suffering and less egotistical delusion

Hope that habit sticks and leads to cessation of suffering (or at least) of egotistical delusion

(That is your theory summed up, is it not?)
No theory, rather, certainty that form, distinction, consciousness is impermanent with the understanding that at times, ignorance takes over and wisdom is forgotten.
I think it is! Hence some evidence here demonstrating that you should learn to communicate as well as me ;)
Hmmm, is it possible that the evidence you have provided of your theories and hoping is evidence that your communication of wisdom could be lacking? :-)

Glostik91
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Glostik91 » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:25 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:Glostik, we do not share the same definition of permanence. Where you equate the concept of permanence with the truth, I equate it with the concept of unchanging form, which of course is wrong view. As I stated before, although truths such as 1 + 1 = 2 are fixed truths, they are meaningless until they are a part and parcel of subjective, ever-changing (impermanent) form analysis.

Therefore by your definition of permanence (a truth) I do not reason that attachment to permanence is delusional, and even though an argument could be made that attachment as a principle is delusional (i.e., it is illogical for the infinite/existence to attach itself to its forms), I accept attachment to be a logical condition of consciousness (existence desires manifestation), therefore, from the perspective of existential desire, impermanence/attachment is not delusional.
I have a little time, so I'll give you a response to this.

The goal of this endeavor is the substantiation of epistemology and metaphysics in light of empiricism (notably David Hume's criticisms, but your criticisms as well). In saying fixed truths such as 1+1=2 are meaningless until they are part of the subjective and ever changing form analysis, it is true so long as 1+1=2 is considered an analytic statement.

There are two kinds of statements, just as there are two kinds of truths. There are analytic statements. These statements are statements in which the subject is obviously related to the predicate. It is so obviously related, that even if one doesn't know the language the statement is given in, one can still see that the subject and predicate are related. For instance, a rose is a rose. Even if I don't know english, nor knew what these symbols are at all, I can still see that the 'a rose' on the left side is the same as the 'a rose' on the right side. They are identical. This is what is meant by analytic. A synthetic statement is one in which the subject and predicate are not obviously related. For instance, a rose is red. A synthesis between rose and red must occur for the statement to be sensible.

What you are saying is that analytic statements are not ampliative. Ampliative is a technical word which means extending to that which is already known. Only synthetic statements extend our knowledge and by this have meaningful uses. Any conscious notion or cognition is only ever as good and meaningful as its relation to its object.

Truth, on the other hand, also comes in two forms, a priori and a posteriori. I will assume you are acquainted with these terms well enough.

So it is quite reasonable to label every analytic statement as a priori true and every synthetic statement as a posteriori true. (and it is quite reasonable)

The great task performed, therefore, by Kant was to substantiate the synthetic a priori, an idea so revolutionary that it spawned not only the enlightenment, but also every single philosopher to come after him. Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc, etc, etc. To study any one of these great philosophers is to do them a disservice by not at the very least being acquainted with the CPR (critique of pure reason). Even Schopenhauer himself says in the beginning of the world as will and representation this:
Finally, the third demand I have to make on the reader might indeed be tacitly assumed, for it is nothing but an acquaintance with the most important phenomenon that has appeared in philosophy for two thousand years, and that lies so near us: I mean the principal writings of Kant.
It simply cannot be understated the importance and influence Kant has had.

My posts here, to you, have essentially been to try and explain this idea of the synthetic a priori, but unfortunately I neither have the time nor words to express it justly. I've tried to point out that your ideas concerning meaning/meaningless, permanence/impermanence, subjective/objective, attached/separated, etc are ideas which rely a great deal on assumptions about the real world (the noumenal) that a thing is either meaningful or meaningless, that a statement is either permanent or impermanent, that a statement is either analytic or synthetic, etc, but that these phenomenal appearances are the things with which epistemology concerns itself, (not the things-in-themselves, but rather the thing as it is perceived), and in this way concerns itself with the limitation of possible cognition instead of the noumenon (which is the unknown).
a gutter rat looking at stars

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:59 am

Glostick, my take on what you are saying is that truth is independent of (reasoned) experience. Since I have already defined experience (to John) as the illusion/delusion of the predicate happening to the subject, I believe we're on the same page. Where I take things a little deeper/further is in applying the intellectual insight of truth being independent of subject-object experience into the living of truth, which, if you can catch the insight, is to live without awareness of subject or object.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:41 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:05 am
JohnJAu wrote:..but I heavily reason and lean toward the former; that there can be no arising of form at all without the accompaniment of the arising of suffering.
You lean towards it because you lean to truth: arising of form is only possible through a fundamental attachment to its rise, some (subconscious) will or desire for it if you will, with in its wake a root ignorance stemming out the nature of this attachment. This is then the root cause of all suffering, in all its noticeably and unnoticeable, voiced and unvoiced ways.

What to do with this wisdom? Understanding the ultimate source of suffering, the ever-giving fountain supplying new and more intricate varieties on suffering to us in what seems to be at times random, other times steered -- is never going to be resolved in the world of form. This includes what most people conceive as "self" and its rights, duties, births and deaths.

The understanding will not bring power, escape, control or any direct solution for anything specific. But it might take the wind out of the sails of a few delusions one has going, freeing up the space to grow in whatever direction his nature will dictate.
The problem with this view of the truth of seeking/form-making/attachment/suffering is that while you correctly define the ignorance of attachment as a root (principle of existence, parenthesis mine) you failed to correctly define wisdom as also being a root principle of existence, rather, it appears to me as if you define wisdom as as being some sort of extension or off-shoot of the root of ignorance. When correctly viewed as two distinct roots or principles of existence, one then has the way to remove the root principle of ignorance by using the root principle of wisdom.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:26 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:41 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:05 am
You lean towards it because you lean to truth: arising of form is only possible through a fundamental attachment to its rise, some (subconscious) will or desire for it if you will, with in its wake a root ignorance stemming out the nature of this attachment. This is then the root cause of all suffering, in all its noticeably and unnoticeable, voiced and unvoiced ways.

What to do with this wisdom? Understanding the ultimate source of suffering, the ever-giving fountain supplying new and more intricate varieties on suffering to us in what seems to be at times random, other times steered -- is never going to be resolved in the world of form. This includes what most people conceive as "self" and its rights, duties, births and deaths.

The understanding will not bring power, escape, control or any direct solution for anything specific. But it might take the wind out of the sails of a few delusions one has going, freeing up the space to grow in whatever direction his nature will dictate.
The problem with this view of the truth of seeking/form-making/attachment/suffering is that while you correctly define the ignorance of attachment as a root (principle of existence, parenthesis mine) you failed to correctly define wisdom as also being a root principle of existence, rather, it appears to me as if you define wisdom as as being some sort of extension or off-shoot of the root of ignorance. When correctly viewed as two distinct roots or principles of existence, one then has the way to remove the root principle of ignorance by using the root principle of wisdom.
But it's not a failure at all! The idea of having two distinct roots or principles remains troubling and dividing. Why opposing the idea of wisdom as some off-shoot or counter, some correction to ignorance? And when ignorance is removed and suffering extinguished, what more you do you want to add here?

If more division is desired, here it is: ignorance as root and path of existence (of things, self, being) and wisdom as root, as path of the absolute (of infinite, no-thing, holy life, of all becoming). The latter one lying beyond any particular sense of existence.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:08 am

Diebert: But it's not a failure at all! The idea of having two distinct roots or principles remains troubling and dividing.
It was you who used the concept of 'a principle' when addressing ignorance, as if it exists in relation to other principles. If it were the only one, you would have said the principle. It was this reference to 'other' that caused me to suggest a second root principle, wisdom, a model I now concede to be unwise.
Why opposing the idea of wisdom as some off-shoot or counter, some correction to ignorance?

Why would it not be the wisest choice to desire an exit from an existence made of ignorance and suffering with only the promise of 'some correction' [some relief]?
And when ignorance is removed and suffering extinguished, what more you do you want to add here?
So this is how it is to be for all time, we continue suffering our ignorance so things can be added to our existence? Sounds like the perfect definition of insanity to me.
Diebert: If more division is desired, here it is: ignorance as root and path of existence (of things, self, being) and wisdom as root, as path of the absolute (of infinite, no-thing, holy life, of all becoming). The latter one lying beyond any particular sense of existence.
I get your point. As suggested above, perhaps the problem lies with both of us implying a root of existence (as if absolute). Perhaps it is wiser to propose a model of existence wherein ignorance and wisdom are conceptual tools used by the mind to explain suffering (attachment to form) and how to end suffering if suffering is desired to be ended (detachment from form which naturally/logically excludes any attachment to a 'world beyond').

Either way, whether mind imputes eternal suffering for existence or temporary suffering for existence, it has a narrative upon which to exist. And here I am/we are. :-)

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:19 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:08 am
Diebert: But it's not a failure at all! The idea of having two distinct roots or principles remains troubling and dividing.
It was you who used the concept of 'a principle' when addressing ignorance, as if it exists in relation to other principles. If it were the only one, you would have said the principle. It was this reference to 'other' that caused me to suggest a second root principle, wisdom, a model I now concede to be unwise.
True, the confusion lied in my choice of words there but the sentence leads to another: "this is then the root cause of all suffering". While ignorance has many faces and doesn't arrive by one single road, the root of our suffering, our life and our existence can only be understood correctly as singular and absolute. Therefore it can be maintained that wisdom is not a separate principle but the way we arrive at any unifying principle in the first place.
Why opposing the idea of wisdom as some off-shoot or counter, some correction to ignorance?

Why would it not be the wisest choice to desire an exit from an existence made of ignorance and suffering with only the promise of 'some correction' [some relief]?
Because any desire to exit existence for you or anyone else implies some form of existence without there being any possibility of ignorance and suffering. There are are many ways to relief or to tranquilize our awareness (that of the abyss, of ignorance and suffering) but it's incorrect to imply any "exit" for any being. It would mean simply non-being and non-existence as far as this conversation goes.
And when ignorance is removed and suffering extinguished, what more you do you want to add here?
So this is how it is to be for all time, we continue suffering our ignorance so things can be added to our existence? Sounds like the perfect definition of insanity to me.
One could very well surmise that there's not much sane about existence, indeed. Yet there's still sanity possible, as if to say!

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:27 am

Impermanence is permanent.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impermanence and meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:59 am

Diebert: And when ignorance is removed and suffering extinguished, what more you do you want to add here?
Pam: So this is how it is to be for all time, we continue suffering our ignorance so things can be added to our existence? Sounds like the perfect definition of insanity to me.
Diebert: One could very well surmise that there's not much sane about existence, indeed. Yet there's still sanity possible, as if to say!
We're back where we started. Where you are willing to accept some sanity in an insane world, I reject wholeheartedly the idea of settling for some sort of contrasting/unifying blending of the two. It's go all the way to 100% sanity/perfection is my motto, and if so be it, die still trying! The Buddha (amongst others) declared himself liberated from ignorance and suffering and showed the way it could be done. Obviously he (amongst others) had no problem finding lots to say about the way, imagine how much more there is to say for those of us who are not yet liberated and are looking for kindred spirits who are seeking what we are seeking! Apparently wisdom of liberation is a fountain, not a desert.

Post Reply