GENIUS FORUMS

Seeker:

Smart ass.

?

Save for Diebert.

Goodness me. You’ve forgotten about Alex, already?

You are referring to truth being experience based, in terms of non-attachment, which is why descriptions don't come close to revealing the actual experience, and it's why Alex is having a difficult time.

How would “descriptions” be difficult for someone who is able to construct a coherent complex of ideas in their mind?

You changed "don't come close to revealing the actual experience" to descriptions being "difficult".

It remains that words don't come close and are nothing but pointers that hope to steer another toward the direct experience.

Are you under the impression you construct a coherent complex of ideas out of personal will? Of your own devising?

Actually, what is happening is that you love to fiddle with straw men rather than think about what I am saying.

This is the second time you have unjustifiably accused me of sabotaging the conversation by misunderstanding what I myself am talking about.

So, let’s take another look at it, shall we?

You: Ok Leyla I guess so, all conceptual attachment [this is what you yourself introduced as a way to identify those who value truth] is definitely conceptual attachment [fantastic, thanks for the insight...]. But don't you think truth goes beyond that? It involves an awareness of how these things actually arise. Anyway, what are you getting at?

To which I (essentially) replied:

ME: The point is clarity of thought—discernment—which is a hallmark of truth. [snip]

It follows from this that the difference between, say, a deep, conceptual attachment to truth and enlightenment would be the “egoless” state of dwelling in truth; ideally speaking, the absolute freedom of movement of truth.

And that brought us to your first such accusation which, unless resolved in your very next post with finality and to my satisfaction, will be the end of this discussion, since any attempt to engage in a coherent exchange with you would clearly be pointless.

Please cease confusing my thinking with your own lack of it:

You are referring to truth being experience based, [...]

Was I really?

You changed "don't come close to revealing the actual experience" to descriptions being "difficult".

I think you’ll find it follows, necessarily.

It remains that words don't come close and are nothing but pointers that hope to steer another toward the direct experience.

Which explains how one can be enlightened and be able to say absolutely nothing about truth; not even anything conceptual?

Are you under the impression you construct a coherent complex of ideas out of personal will? Of your own devising?

WTF? As it stands, that is totally irrelevant.

Leyla Shen wrote:
enlightenment would be the “egoless” state of dwelling in truth;

You are referring to truth being experience based

Was I really?

Yes, clearly, you really were. Resolved.
Unless this "'egoless' state" of 'dwelling' is somehow not a direct experience.

No, that's a fail I'm afraid, Seeker, for quoting out of context what suits your position only rather than addressing the the essence of my argument.

In closing, the full quote:

But a deep, conceptual attachment to truth is clearly not the worst thing that can happen to someone even if it is necessarily ego-driven; i.e. it involves the dynamic of separation, and something to attach to, between self and other (the big other being “truth”). The attachment is necessarily “conceptual” since truth itself cannot allow emotional attachment; the ego alone invests and suffers that (the highs and lows of joy and disappointment).

It follows from this that the difference between, say, a deep, conceptual attachment to truth and enlightenment would be the “egoless” state of dwelling in truth; ideally speaking, the absolute freedom of movement of truth.

You referred to the experience "dwelling" and "egoless state", but somehow get caught up saying it's a false 'accusation' to point out this awareness of the truth of non-attachment is derived from such experiences. Which is ridiculous because any knowledge or coherent ideas you have on the subject come directly from that awareness.

And I'm not sure why you're having an argument. I find it's an egotistical trait to engage with the approach personvsperson. Those who persist with this approach should be dealt with like children, or little whiney girls, or Diebert, which is the same thing.

Men's need to dominate [women] may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root and men are making no effort to discover it. -- Marilyn French

The feminine is a giving into what is; the male is a perpetual contradiction to it. -- Apostolakos

Women are, the feminine realization of that...
Men are not, the masculine realization of that...

• -- Anonymous

Here we go again...

You referred to the experience "dwelling" and "egoless state", but somehow get caught up saying it's a false 'accusation' to point out this awareness of the truth of non-attachment is derived from such experiences. Which is ridiculous because any knowledge or coherent ideas you have on the subject come directly from that awareness.

Your claim is a false and ridiculous claim. If such an “awareness of truth” (non-attachment/enlightenment/dwelling in an egoless state) were experience based (empirical), it would be scientifically verifiable, and it isn’t. That’s why, for the thinking man, it is properly discerned as metaphysics.

So, please provide your argument for the notion that there is something which exists and experiences the metaphysical.

And I'm not sure why you're having an argument. I find it's an egotistical trait to engage with the approach personvsperson. Those who persist with this approach should be dealt with like children, or little whiney girls, or Diebert, which is the same thing.

What person?

Leyla Shen wrote: If such an “awareness of truth” (non-attachment/enlightenment/dwelling in an egoless state) were experience based (empirical), it would be scientifically verifiable, and it isn’t.

The fuck?

"Thus, when the mind stays in the Heart, the ‘I’ which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self which ever exists will shine."
- Ramana Maharshi

Once you awaken, you have no interest in judging those who sleep

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

When in doubt
Whip it out
Whip it good

You must be a Devotee.

aha aha aha

“You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”
- LR Hubbard

*

Speaking of science fiction, here’s a good short story by Orson Scott Card that has finally found its way to the interwebs.

Unaccompanied Sonata
http://janlowman.escuelacampoalegre.wik ... Sonata.pdf

If you close your mind in judgement
and traffic with desires.
your heart will be troubled.

If you keep your mind from judgeing
and aren't led by the senses,
your heart will find peace.

Lao Tzu [ via John ] "Quotes From Wise Sages"


Do you believe this is true John ?
Or do you KNOW it to be true ?

If you KNEW what was ment
Why do you continue to do the opposite ?

I guess it hasn't really sunk in your brain ?
Or is it only knowledge of the heart ?

Or are you heartless ?

:\

Don't see the word brain in there lol.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote::\

Don't see the word brain in there lol.

You have to be out of your mind to see it.

:)


http://www.pabuddhistvihara.net/uploads ... _brain.pdf

Yes I get it Kunga, someone wrote it and hence it's correct.


"There is rebirth into a new body"

This is such a huge misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching, who directly refuted transmigration. You just don't quiet see how it is yet but still (admittedly) cling to various concepts put forth by others.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Yes I get it Kunga, someone wrote it and hence it's correct.

Strange you would say this with all the quotes you post of wise sages :)

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:the Buddha's teaching, who directly refuted transmigration

If he directly refuted it....why did he say he remembered all of his past lives after he became Enlightened ?
There are many Suttas/Sutras QUOTING his words , and these words are respected by Buddhists al over the world as truth.
Here's just one of many references of Buddha speaking about literal rebirth :

'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"


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


17. (8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a Tathagata's power...

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






I don't know whether or not literal rebirth is true or not, all I have are quotes, books,suttas, and opinions to go by......I have had some past life regression done...but I am skeptical of that myself.....so I don't know, and I'm not hung up on it either way....I just don't regard all the written records of Buddha, or renowned historical Buddhist teachers as a bunch of B.S.


If you want to logically investigate yourself as to whether or not literal rebirth is possible...what I do is think about what is the essence of life itself....then look at life, and see that it is constantly being reborn in beings....and death is not the end....
According to Buddhist teachings, as long as we are creating karma [through our actions], there will be an endless cycle of birth and death. Enlightenment is the end of karma creating....thus no more rebirth. Unless you are a Bodhisattva [Mahayana theory], you vow to save all sentient beings, and postpone your Enlightenment, so you can come back after death and continue your work as a Bodhisattva. Buddha was a Bodhisattva for many eons before he went into Parinirvana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parinirvana

So you see....emptiness is quite full !

Kunga wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:the Buddha's teaching, who directly refuted transmigration

If he directly refuted it....why did he say he remembered all of his past lives after he became Enlightened ?
There are many Suttas/Sutras QUOTING his words , and these words are respected by Buddhists al over the world as truth.
Here's just one of many references of Buddha speaking about literal rebirth :

'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"

You don't know what transmigration means, clearly.

He directly refuted transmigration, and directly supported rebirth, including past lives.

You just don't know what that means nor can you understand the significance of that in relation to egotism and the nature of reality.

All I hear is "I don't know", "I don't know", so why are you telling me? If you admit you don't know the truth?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Yes I get it Kunga, someone wrote it and hence it's correct.


"There is rebirth into a new body"

This is such a huge misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching, who directly refuted transmigration. You just don't quiet see how it is yet but still (admittedly) cling to various concepts put forth by others.

John...clearly you referred here to the statement of rebirth, and at the same time spoke of transmigration [thinking they were both the same .]

So I assumed you were referring to rebirth.

And now I will put you on "ignore" , as you are such a poor loser !!!

All you do is use ad hominems' when you've been refuted, you don't back up any of your statements with facts or references,
you just play dirty....and that is not being honest or truthful.

Good bye.

lol, I was trying to ignore her so she ignores me, thank god.

I didn't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I'm redundant, but...

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering"
-Buddha The Word

"Know, too, that there is nothing more common than to do evil for the pleasure of doing it" - Prosper Merimee

“I have no ego!
Who do you think you are, to talk to me like this?”


-Krishnamurti


http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsam ... murti.html