Deaf to Non-duality!

[Kelly Jones]

perhaps its not the drift of a Boddhisattva to give up. Realising causation reveals Alex will change one way or another. It's being with Alex in that flux...seeing the possibility of Alex...having the conversation with Alex around that great possibility Alex really is in his true nature...being tough love when he loses the vision of his possibility of contributing with wisdom.

I don't lose sight of Alex's true nature when observing his behaviour. But I agree with the idea that casting pearls before swine is foolish. It's echoed in the notion that there are some teachers who can be justifiably criticised, and in particular, the teacher who tries to help a student who doesn't give a damn. Gautama also thought it would be too difficult to teach the Dharma for this reason.

"Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teacher who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. Which three?

"There is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if a man were to pursue [a woman] who pulls away, or to embrace one who turns her back. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the first teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.

"Then there is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if a man, neglecting his own field, were to imagine that another's field should be weeded. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the second teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.

"Then there is the case where a certain teacher has attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the third teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy."

...

[Kelly Jones]

The terms: absolute, totality, just don't mean anything to me.

Yes, we realise that. It's pretty much the same situation as you hearing someone talking about "fadronitobly", and you don't know what they mean. You hear them talking about fadronitobly a lot, it doesn't make sense to you, so you call them a fadronitoblist. And you think you've said something, even though you don't know what.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

I don't lose sight of Alex's true nature when observing his behaviour. But I agree with the idea that casting pearls before swine is foolish. It's echoed in the notion that there are some teachers who can be justifiably criticised, and in particular, the teacher who tries to help a student who doesn't give a damn. Gautama also thought it would be too difficult to teach the Dharma for this reason.

I can see you generate kindliness and patience with Alex for the most part and I can get that pearls before swine possibility but I wouldn't grasp onto it too tightly as a plank in the platform or anything, simply because it is limiting and generates what is not freedom. Even tho' Buddha foresaw the difficulty he proceeded nonetheless and the wonderful conversation of skilful means opened up.

And thusly the marvel of realising causation is directly accessed because when all seems lost, causation provides new possibilities in forms to keep the show on the road.

The Tao is astonishing.

[Blair]

How they run their lives. What they do for their community, family, friends. Being is a given as I see it.

Those are all externalizations to distract you from the truth about your own nature (non-inherency).

What you conveniently forget Alex, is that you are here on a forum as a guest, but your general conduct is one of someone who barges in uninvited to a house, insists on staying there, all the while flinging insults at the owners and barraging them with accusations that their every word and action is wrong.

And yet you are allowed to stay...

[Dennis Mahar]

"Sanity is restoration to our true nature."

Sounds good. Could be. And I think I know where you are coming fro

Yes, you get it.
Now, put your weapons down and come in peace please.

[Kelly Jones]

If a person is really strongly attached to categorising things, and believes this amounts to true knowledge, then he hasn't sufficient doubt to be open to "infinite possibilities". Only if he had a crack of doubt, would he ponder the common ground of all things. Only if he had a crack of doubt in his categorising skills, would he be able to find meaning in the notion of the Totality, the Absolute.

But Alex has admitted that it means nothing to him. He is thoroughly bedded down in the branches, in categories, and is happy in skillfully maneouvring his way around and in categories. He has no significant interest in going any further, such as to find the common ground, the substrate, of all categories.

Even though everyone is capable of becoming wise, not everyone is interested in it. And the more settled in their ways, the less they can form an interest.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

If a person is really strongly attached to categorising things, and believes this amounts to true knowledge, then he hasn't sufficient doubt to be open to "infinite possibilities".

By skillful means the attachment can be loosed.

But Alex has admitted that it means nothing to him.

people lie in the heat of battle.

Yes, he thinks the Totality is a thing and runs the Categories and Properties business over it as you would if you thought it was a thing.

We'll get there.

[Blair]

We'll get there.

We? How long have you been reading this forum, or did you post under another name? You seem awfully presumptuous for someone who has been a member for all of two days..

[Dennis Mahar]

TA wrote

The terms: absolute, totality, just don't mean anything to me.

Existence exists is proven to be absolute because to deny its existence requires existence.
I exist is proven to be absolute because to deny it requires it.

I AM is absolute.

Arguments against that could never be mounted by any sane, rational mind. Only a mind devoid of the natural wisdom of what is obvious could ever propose such a bizarre metaphysical premise as 'existence does not exist'.
So, in the most direct and practical sense, no human can assert with the remotist chance of being in a position to prove his or her statement, 'I am not'.

It gets very simple when you get with yourself head-on, deer in the headlights, with that Absoluteness of the clear and present FACT that "Existence IS, and I AM."



So from what source is any confusion, contradiction, or irrational and illogical speculation?

From an insane mind.

The mind is not the issue when it comes down to the attainment of true Self Knowledge.

It is the issue of, rather, an irrational mind. A mind which has abdicated it's rightful place as a servant whose function is to think for Itself, rather than accept willy-nilly all the secondhand ideas of those who long ago gave up the right to be called human beings and allowed themselves to become machines acting on stimuli installed by idiots who know nothing of what the job of the mind is as the servant of the Master ... YOU, as the formless yet very real intellect. The PURE Absolute Subject I, which is the source and cause of the mind's ability to think and reason, OR the source and cause of denying that very sacred right (at a cost which is all too obvious to the suffering individual who truly knows not what he has given up and for what alternative.)

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Kelly,
We can structure up to enable access to the true nature. Let's take Alex into consideration.
He's got a World Projection that seeks to make it solid and concrete. His projection is that Buddhism, Tao, A=A etc are platforms that give rise to a performer and a performance and he wants to 'tell the truth' or expose the liars and fight the fight about that...in this way he has failed to realise he has given his own self a platform that renders a performer and a performance.
He's got a Story/Performance going where he gets to appear to himself as a Superhero...that's a lot of fun of course but doesn't give us access to freedom, therefore is useless and qualifies as 'Deaf to Non Duality'.

Its just where he's at.
Locked into a Story where he wants to look good and feel like a winner and yet causation will unravel that little number.

Time is Being and Being is Time as expressed in 'for the time being'.

There's only ever possibilities opening out in this relative existence, getting lockstep into a solid story is getting out of step with nature.

[Talking Ass]

Dennis wrote: "Existence exists is proven to be absolute because to deny its existence requires existence. / I exist is proven to be absolute because to deny it requires it."

What is the aternative to this? Is this what you mean by 'absolute'?

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi TA,

Say out loud to yourself:

Existence doesn't exist and I am not.

[Talking Ass]

Have you flipped your lid?

[cousinbasil]

Hi TA,

Say out loud to yourself:

Existence doesn't exist and I am not.

And chew gum at the same time.

[Dennis Mahar]

Have you flipped your lid?

IT's got to be structured up rightly.
Saying out loud 'I am not' appears to be absurd in the saying of it. Now you have certainty that I Am.

This I Am has features like the subject/ object split. Me here and the World there.

When in conversation you will actually have an experience that is always/already this way.
You(first person) communicating with an other (second person) about 'it' (third person).

See what's going on?

You will be constucting a predicate calculus about an 'it' to an other in order to sway them over to your way of thinking.
I would say 99.99999999% of predicate calculi are rubbish and really is just gossip, lies, projection etc..
I would say I Am is mostly engaging in this activity in order to look good or look impressive or get some advantage or other.

The main point now is, if we were looking for the possibility of an absolute, where would we go to look for it?

Would we go in the direction of the predicates?
Would we go in the direction of looking at I Am?

I would say we look at I Am.

Because if we are looking for absolute or 'first principle', we look for what came prior to...

I Am came prior to the predicates it makes.

the predicates I Am constructs are relative to I Am.

OK?