GENIUS FORUMS

(:

Direct experience tells us that awareness does not end.

Direct experience also tells us that the body dies, and the awareness that was housed in the body is no longer there.

Inference tells us that awareness ends because the body dies.

Yeah, the "subsequent rotting" of a dead forum in yet another thread where the only eternal winner is "hat's off" Dennis! It's only fitting to end it with talking about how others make us feel and some reference to an immortal self. Not bad for a postmodern Pye!

My point being: religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine. As if every discussion is bound to be given homeopathic lethal doses, as Dan remarked halfway that he needed another stroke to fit in. Every discussion of more than one page will suffer the same fate though, a never-ending exposition of the point and the fate of religion.

• Masculine and feminine are light years apart. No one even knows whether there is still a relation between the two. It's like billiard balls which meet at different speeds, the one touching the other before the other touches it: the non-polarity of the sexes means they no longer share the same space. ... And woman is, for example, the only animal creature capable of distilling death for man in homeopathic doses. But the opposite is not true. Man has never signified death for woman, as she signifies it for man. There is no symmetry in the world of love. (from Cool Memories II, by Jean Baudrillard)

Cahoot wrote: Inference tells us that awareness ends because the body dies.

Are you saying this is correct or showing that it isn't? (Just in case you were implying something)

Anyway, if you think that is the case, start again at the beginning.

(don't fret, Diebert; no worries. No one is going to knock you off your perch.
It's still the Age of Diebert, and it's been that way for a very long time.
Can't blame the natives when they get restless . . . . :)

Sorry to leave the thread hanging. Pye makes a decent point, where it applies. I don't mind explaining or repeating myself in further detail as long as it doesn't become too redundant for any possible benefit to come of it. Details are indeed important, but can easily be seen as mere brow beating/stature boosting if the relevance of each exclaimed detail isn't appreciated, given that the detail is actually relevant, of course.

Anyway, to bring back a couple questions..

Leyla Shen wrote:

Russell wrote:All things are impermanent appearances of subjective experience.

Would it not be more truthful to say that all things are impermanent appearances of subjective/objective experience?

I bring to mind here something touched on in another thread; the proposition that the All/Totality is “beyond meaning”. I raise it here in this context because of the problematic nature of that statement. The All/Totality is only beyond dualistic reasoning. In other words, it has meaning to anyone who actually reads it until an attempt is made to argue for its existence. When we apply our thinking to it, it defies cognitive expression because thought itself is dualistic by nature.

Good point, this is my understanding and was trying to portray the same point in the other thread.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Russell wrote:One always directly experiences reality.

Russell, what do you mean with a direct experience? Like some unfiltered, pure "as is"-ness? Why not just say "one always experiences". Whatever it is we're experiencing, there's no way to distinguish between direct and indirect experiencing or real and unreal ones. There's only experiencing in any case. The syntax is important here because of what is implied with the extra words, everything that is "smuggled" into a back-door, so to speak.

I used the phrase 'direct experience' because it was used in the post I was responding to. There is no such thing as an 'indirect experience' of reality, which was part of my point. I wouldn't normally use "directly" with that phrase.

Pye wrote:Don't fret, Diebert; no worries. No one is going to knock you off your perch.

It's more about who or what is deluding the conversation (thought!) and what is not. Everyone is perching but my colors might be striking :-)

Russell wrote:I used the phrase 'direct experience' because it was used in the post I was responding to. There is no such thing as an 'indirect experience' of reality, which was part of my point. I wouldn't normally use "directly" with that phrase.

Okay! It's one of those details I find important for some reason in this context at least.

Diebert comments: . . . in yet another thread where the only eternal winner is "hat's off" Dennis!

No intention to re-derail the promising turn of discussion, just permit me to get this said once and for last:

I spend the near-entirety of my days looking for meaning in the multifarious scriblings of 110-140 young people in 4-5 classes at 1-2 different uni's every semester taking philosophy subjects. I have two choices there: to quibble with them over form, expression, and replace this with the more 'proper' casings of analytics, or I can look for their understanding of reality. In other words, I can spend each 15 weeks teaching them an academic trade, or I can look out after the condition of their philosophizing. Now, if I can get some work done with form, believe you me, it takes place. I get to do independent studies with some of the philo majors now and again. But with that many students writing that many words, the intent becomes what the intent (at least amongst others) seems to have been in this place: and that is the speaking to reality. Otherwise, why speak at all.

I am confident that I have reached the reading and response-to thousands upon thousands of these writings encountered over the years, so I think it fair to say I've had a lot of practice. That's how I read here, too. If not everyone gets Dennis's writing, I do, and I know exactly the depth of what he's schooled himself in, practices, knows - what is the locus around which some here only see as a moving target. I know this language (so sue me) and I believe it has much to lend here, as much as does yours, Diebert, as much as does anyone's here interested in understanding over stand.


So, Russell's getting something started . . . .

I'm not sure that I'm starting something but at least Diebert made point on topic:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:My point being: religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine.

Yes, religion seems to be the most widely practiced ritualistic worship of feminine values. Reminds me of an oft quoted scripture, "God is Love", which suits women's egos perfectly. What do women want more than to be loved or to have their own loving nature affirmed?

Of course, the men get their fix in the vicarious experience of their greatest egotistical longing: "triumph". As long as God, the Almighty Creator is a 'man', their egos are pleased. Women get the best of both worlds in this scenario: God, the Protector, embodies eternal Love, the thing they value most; yet God, the Boss, is also a Man, relieving them of all meaningful responsibility.

Yes, religion seems to be the most widely practiced ritualistic worship of feminine values. Reminds me of an oft quoted scripture, "God is Love", which suits women's egos perfectly. What do women want more than to be loved or to have their own loving nature affirmed?

Of course, the men get their fix in the vicarious experience of their greatest egotistical longing: "triumph". As long as God, the Almighty Creator is a 'man', their egos are pleased. Women get the best of both worlds in this scenario: God, the Protector, embodies eternal Love, the thing they value most; yet God, the Boss, is also a Man, relieving them of all meaningful responsibility.

Have you 'triumphed' with that?

'Something's wrong' is the only thing you've said.

Resigned to it.
Dead in the water.

'Something's wrong' is the only thing you've said. I'm contributing to a discussion on the "point of religion". Perhaps you're in the wrong thread?

God is the 'unanswered question'.

The point of religion is to provide an answer to that 'unanswered question'.

I live in that unanswered question.
In that way I experience God as a possibility that blows my mind.
I get to be in touch.

I don't have to sneer.

Dennis Mahar wrote:God is the 'unanswered question'.

The point of religion is to provide an answer to that 'unanswered question'.

Well there you have it. The point of religion is to answer the 'unanswered question', i.e., God.

It's not a bad statement in itself, given the correct context; it's just awfully vague. God means different things to different people, and more often than not, God represents a reflection of their own egos.

So with most people, your statement doesn't solve anything, but actually perpetuates the problem.

I live in that unanswered question.
In that way I experience God as a possibility that blows my mind.
I get to be in touch.

And how do you suppose you can help others to live that way? Sometimes general statements about reality doesn't cut it, you know.

Context is decisive.
All I can do is generate a Context to live out of.
I've done the algebra in the way algebra occurs for me.
God as a concept didn't work out for me.

I had to recontextualise.
My romance with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Nagarjuna, Lao Tzu et al, made it a cinch.

When I'm bushwalking for instance, I'm 'taking it on' and being 'taken up' by it into a domain of experience as a possibility of God.

It looks real sacred.

You can tell me I'm caught up in a 'chick flick'.
I'll listen to you as another Context to look out of except that I can't quite 'hear it' as what's going on for me.
It's up to me to protect my being.
Pye 'hears' me and has my back.

No need to defend yourself, Dennis. Perhaps you can see how problematic your 'style' can be when it comes to a discussion forum, for most of us anyway. For example, all I can gather from your response to my post is that you have a problem with it. What that problem is, or where you think I can improve, is completely beyond me.

Perhaps Pye could stand by and provide translations when needed? :)

The Buddha didn't want to discuss Brahmin/God.

It's left as an unanswered question.

Living inside the unanswered question is living in wonder, a sense of wonder.
Beginner's Mind.
An experience of 'this is sacred'.

a felt experience.

To assume to have 'the answers' intellectually kinda shuts it down and a sense of resignation permeates.
It starts to look negative and bleak and a kind of sneering develops.
A kind of cynicism, complacency.

One can't be too rigorous in the matter of being 'organised' for 'this is sacred'.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:A literal statement then? The cessation of eating, walking, being, existing?

Yes. See the Maha-parinibbana Sutta for the Buddha's explanation of when the time of Total Unbinding "occurs":

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html

Dennis Mahar wrote:To assume to have 'the answers' intellectually kinda shuts it down and a sense of resignation permeates.
It starts to look negative and bleak and a kind of sneering develops.
A kind of cynicism, complacency.

One can't be too rigorous in the matter of being 'organised' for 'this is sacred'.

It's really simple, Dennis, you need to demonstrate why you think that there is a cynical attitude portrayed in my post. You can't expect me, or others, to accept your diagnosis of my attitude without first showing that you understand the point being made.

If thinking about the implications of feminine and masculine values in regards to religion is too troublesome, too 'conceptual' for you, that's fine. But that doesn't make the concepts false, or necessitate a cynical attitude in those that choose to think and/or talk about such things. I'm not saying you have to be verbose or "full of ideas" in order to understand reality, but the portrayal of understanding is limited by language.

You took a crack at me Russell.
It's like you've thrown the dice and 'got' me as feminine minded.

'A leading lady in a chick flick.' (aka deluded)

Is that it?

Dennis Mahar wrote:You took a crack at me Russell.

When? And are you offended? Is that what this is about?

It's like you've thrown the dice and 'got' me as feminine minded.

'A leading lady in a chick flick.' (aka deluded)

I'm not sure how you drew a link between my criticism and any notion of being 'feminine minded', but I am claiming your delusion if you think there was a cynical, or sneering undertone to my post.

No hard feelings then.
We checked it out and it's OK.

movingalways wrote:
Yes. See the Maha-parinibbana Sutta for the Buddha's explanation of when the time of Total Unbinding "occurs":

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html

Great, I see it in the exact same way then, I know for a fact some others don't take it so literally and see the idea as an attempt to 'trash life' or so forth. I was on this website reading Suttas about unbinding just last night.
Good to see someone is getting it, starting to think the feminine around here are doing better than the masculine.

I can only imagine then Moving that you (without any goal, incentive) spend a deal of timeless time without craving for the world, released, resting in That peace. On the same page?

"Transient are all compounded things, Subject to arise and vanish; Having come into existence they pass away; Good is the peace when they forever cease."

"No movement of the breath, but with steadfast heart, Free from desires and tranquil — so the sage Comes to his end. By mortal pangs unshaken, His mind, like a flame extinguished, finds release."

"Through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment."

"Utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance"

The value of religion is to reach a consensus on what needs to be asked and why.

Russell,
Diebert's chicanery is astounding.
A thread gets a head of steam and runs away.
Diebert contributes generally in the order of 20% of the posts.
When the tide turn against him.
He chimes in:
This is all feminine minded.

You jump in (protecting the forum)
masculine, masculine,
not false, not false.

looks like machinery.

You talk about a problem.
The definition of a problem is postulate-counter postulate.

Resolution.
All and any conceptual frameworks lack inherent existence.
Conceptual frameworks are simply reification.
Conceptual frameworks are meaning held and to be seen as phantoms ultimately.

Mutability doesn't have to be bewildering.