Earth is Paradise

[Dennis Mahar]

John,

The problem is there is no cooperative goal

I also admit I put very little effort or caring

Your position is,

I'm OK and you guys aren't OK.

[Dan Rowden]

Seeker,

If you get a chance, watch this video on non-attachment and give me your response. I have an awkward feeling you've adopted a classic Pseudo-Buddhist come New Age approach to the whole issue which is essentially that of adopting the notion as a sort of "philosophy" of life (which is both ridiculous and impossible on its own).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQHq9bMjj4

[SeekerOfWisdom]

ahh, so much reading, I'm going to have to give in aren't I?

I would get the same response if I put effort in, someone getting caught up in words or arguing about nothing, at least this way I spent less effort talking about nothing, I'm a simple person.

Have I mentioned I don't talk often? and also find most conversation mundane unless it is on a few subjects like the mystery of the world, ultimate reality and enlightenment/meditation. I also think all of you people are the highest beings of the best kind, smart ones, and read a lot of great stuff all the time, but for as long as there isn't openness and purposefully finding agreements rather than disagreements there is only the kind of conversation leading toward one that brad might cause. In other words, stop caring about words or contradictions or putting the other person down, you always know exactly what I mean if you stop assuming I don't know what it means, talk in meanings, "illusion" = only of the mind. Not-doing = not-doing which in my opinion, through change of mindset and thoughts, is literally effecting what appear to be outside circumstances.

I'll watch that vid in a sec and get back to the comments, slow internet atm

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Pye you can do whatever you want about physical suffering, what I am talking about is that people are always "hurrying and hastening", stressing, hating and getting angry over impermanent appearances. They cling to self and cause themselves suffering, especially through delusions such as fear of death or fear of the future.

Sentience operates much better when content without negative thoughts, it turns life from anguish and fear and stress to peace and joyful appreciation of right now, but like I said you are still under the impression this isn't of mind and isn't so easily influenced by state of mind, that is why you might see disattachment as an avoidance of these issues rather than the solution.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Dan I flicked through the video, non-attachment is about being wakeful and viewing things with an impartial eye, being the attentive observer of thought/sensation, viewing life, people, and yourself without familiarity or preconceived ideas of how things are, in this you overcome self-clinging and recognize the "egotistical delusions" and false imaginations that arise from not recognizing the nature of thought.. Perception literally changes as you bear witness to emptiness and illusion(manifestations of the mind like a vision). Without attachment to the self eternal experience is also realized, these are all reasons for the ways of non-desire and not-doing.

You were otherwise talking about detaching from emotional hardships as a defense, that is not the same thing and is not being wakeful.

Everything being of the mind makes the words illusion and dream very applicable btw, it is a dream, body is not self, mind goes on independent of it, it is just a fleeting experience of consciousness, exactly like a dream.

The philosophy is simple, describing it is what creates problems and disagreements, which shouldn't exist because the fact is we are all experiencing the exact same thing and it is a mystery to us.

You can all answer now about your opinions on the important parts that show the true nature of someones philosophy, what you think of death, consciousness and ultimate reality?

Most have admitted to avoiding personal interrogation/inquiry while still dishing it out.

[Dennis Mahar]

only your statements can be dealt with.

You said you came to this forum in order to get recruits for a sideshow you wanted to set up.
To my way of thinking that's a plan and a desire.

Your instruction to that group, you said, was in the order of 'give up desire, possession and plans'.

Now you say it's OK to have those if they don't cause suffering.

Your philosophy appears to be 'changeable' in circumstances which Diebert fusses about and rightly so.

If you are going to set up a group which you lead,
that means,
holding the position,
I know and they don't.
I'm OK and they're not.
For them to be OK they would have to agree with you.

Everything you write has the flavour 'I know and you guys don't", 'I'm OK and you're not'.

In Buddhsm, illusory means 'doesn't exist from its own side'.
The Buddha did not any time suggest to give up 'thinking' or 'reflecting'.
He strongly urged to develop 'right view'.

A serious Buddhist typically spends at least 5 years studying every nuance of logic.

If it's all too hard, that's OK.

Your condition is Beginner's Mind.
it's not enlightenment, it's a precursor.
that's why it's called Beginner.
it's a like a 'stormtrooper'.
it can recognise the possibility of harmonious relations but can't fulfill its own part.

The problem with this is things are not illusory. To go through life with this philosophy is to fall into a pseudo-Buddhist-New Age delusion. As a metaphysic the idea of the illusory nature of all "things/reality/whatever" is logically unsustainable and philosophically abortive. If you consider the "meta-logic" of this idea you'll see that it ends in contradiction and cannot therefore be ultimately true.

Things are ultimately neither real nor illusory and to think in either fashion simply traps one in a false duality.

This is called perfect wisdom and you threw it back in Dan's face like he was a fool.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When I suggested the group it was nothing like that, it was to find anything people needed help with and help each other whatever that might be.

"'I know and you guys don't", 'I'm OK and you're not'."

This is you Dennis, always you, it's the only thing you ever say. Inquire/point out how someone forgot dependent origination and then you yourself avoiding all question/inquiry.

Two examples of "I know and you don't" in your comment:
"If it's all too hard, that's OK."
"Your condition is Beginner's Mind."

In Buddhism illusory means "Like a dream or miraculous image projected" "an illusion" "a vision" "a manifestation of the mind", "like heat haze", "nothing exists but what is seen of the mind itself".

Fundamentally, it means the body is an experience and mind goes on despite it.

That is great for those Buddhists who need so much time to learn it all, and I said the same thing always, I never said I was trying to kill myself through not eating because it's a desire and I have strict rules against those whatever they may be.

"Only your statements can be dealt with", why are you dealing with anything?

I didn't throw anything back in his face, he asked me what I thought of non-attachment and the vid and I replied.

[Dennis Mahar]

"Only your statements can be dealt with", why are you dealing with anything?

rhetoric like that is bolshevik.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

All you are doing is having some kind of personal interrogation about nothing creating arguments from your side.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It is a forum not some kind of war, aren't you sick of this?

[Dennis Mahar]

Conceptual thinking operates using dualities, especially that of subject
versus object, perceiver versus the external world.
it is this very process of intellection and our grasping onto its
products, i.e. concepts, which prevents us from realizing enlightenment.
One must “appease” the tendency to conceptualize, and it is this appeasement
which will allow one to see through the illusions of dualities and
grasp the “true nature” of things. This true nature is formless
and beyond conceptual distinctions. It is devoid of self-nature, and so is
described as being “empty,” sunya. The fact of dependent arising, i.e. the
fact that all existing things come into and go out of being only in dependence
with other existing things and that no thing can exist “on its own,”
as it were, also demonstrates the fundamental “emptiness” (sunyata) of ground of being of the universe, one could say no more than that the
universe is characterized by ultimate emptiness. This is not a pessimistic
denial of existence, though, but rather just a description of the way things
are. One who sees the true nature of things simply perceives that they are
empty of self- nature.This realization, far from being nihilistic,is actually
the very means by which liberation is achieved.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Never seen so much writing from you in one comment!

I liked it, very true, so what is the issue? No self nature means no free will and no control over thoughts, which exist only as uncontrolled imaginations and hence can't be assigned credibility in terms of ultimate reality, what do you then think of things existing only of the mind? and the otherwise extra idea that they correlate to something beyond what we see with consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

The philosophy of the Buddha rests on one simple observation: all
things are impermanent.

Transitoriness is the fundamental property of
all existent things, for all things come into being, persist for a time, and
then pass out of being again.
Without such impermanence, no change
would be possible, and thus neither would liberation be possible. That is,
it is the susceptibility of all things to change that allows one the option
of controlling one’s life .
The Buddha’s
emphasis on the reality of impermanence should not be seen as a doctrinal
dogma as much as a simple perception. Not only is continual flux
perceptible to all who have insight, but, moreover, a balance in reality
requires that any thing which comes into existence must also, some day,
go out of existence.

[Dennis Mahar]

Keep this in mind.
Buddha's philosophy is the philosophy of non-duality.
Seamless.

He recognises we distinguish and draw distinctions.
we distinguish dogs from cats.
to distiguish is to separate out.

He doesn't ask that you believe him.
He asks you to engage with him.
Enquire with him.

He is drawing distinctions and the distinctions he draws are what he calls 'right view'.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"on one simple observation"

This is the part I particularly like, that it is simple.

The Buddha, like other not-knowers, also talked about false imaginations and delusions caused by erroneous speculation and constant discrimination, the addiction to assertion and negation. Here is contained the major flaw, everyone thinks they know.

All the imaginations of knowing and ideas about time, space, reality, atoms, everything, every single idea and conceptualization ever had has been subject to this same impermanence. The thought has arisen, it has passed away, it is both existent but non-existent, "nothing exists", it was only a temporary appearance.

This is what should be acknowledged, this is what precedes the possibility of right view. It is the only thing that separates people learning useless and meaningless information from beneficial wakeful observation. A person could study for years and still be in the same place from when they begun in terms of spiritual progress, they could be worse off thinking they have more knowledge. There is no real wakefulness while thinking you know.

The more egotistical someone is the more they think they know the more they are clouded through familiarity and attachment. The Buddha, like others, spoke of how "all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to you" through enlightenment.

All wisdom coming naturally without having to learn almost any knowledge.....true wisdom is in knowing you don't know, abandoning all past delusions and preconceived notions of how things are.

Then what is left? All the knowledge of you can be certain you know about existence will amount to a list of a few things, those few things contain all wisdom and are "simple". Anyone talking about something other than the few things they know, is stepping outside the boundary of real knowledge about existence. Say something you think you know, it will be completely wrong from another perspective or in a matter of time, impermanence, the idea itself was just a fleeting appearance.

The Tao is ungraspable.
How can her mind be at one with it?
Because she doesn't cling to ideas.

You cannot come up to the average knowing man and logically or reasonably explain to him the cycle of death and rebirth.

It is complete idiocy to the common "this is me" way of thinking. This shows clearly the importance of abandoning even the simplest of what we think we know. If you want to explain impermanence or dependent origination to anyone and have it be even slightly applicable to their lives, first teach them not to know.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"on one simple observation"

This is the part I particularly like, that it is simple.

The Buddha, like other not-knowers, also talked about false imaginations and delusions caused by erroneous speculation and constant discrimination, the addiction to assertion and negation. Here is contained the major flaw, everyone thinks they know.

All the imaginations of knowing and ideas about time, space, reality, atoms, everything, every single idea and conceptualization ever had has been subject to this same impermanence. The thought has arisen, it has passed away, it is both existent but non-existent, "nothing exists", it was only a temporary appearance.

This is what should be acknowledged, this is what precedes the possibility of right view. It is the only thing that separates people learning useless and meaningless information from beneficial wakeful observation. A person could study for years and still be in the same place from when they begun in terms of spiritual progress, they could be worse off thinking they have more knowledge. There is no real wakefulness while thinking you know.

The more egotistical someone is the more they think they know the more they are clouded through familiarity and attachment. The Buddha, like others, spoke of how "all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to you" through enlightenment.

All wisdom coming naturally without having to learn almost any knowledge.....true wisdom is in knowing you don't know, abandoning all past delusions and preconceived notions of how things are.

Then what is left? All the knowledge of you can be certain you know about existence will amount to a list of a few things, those few things contain all wisdom and are "simple". Anyone talking about something other than the few things they know, is stepping outside the boundary of real knowledge about existence. Say something you think you know, it will be completely wrong from another perspective or in a matter of time, impermanence, the idea itself was just a fleeting appearance.

The Tao is ungraspable.
How can her mind be at one with it?
Because she doesn't cling to ideas.

You cannot come up to the average knowing man and logically or reasonably explain to him the cycle of death and rebirth.

It is complete idiocy to the common "this is me" way of thinking. This shows clearly the importance of abandoning even the simplest of what we think we know. If you want to explain impermanence or dependent origination to anyone and have it be even slightly applicable to their lives, first teach them not to know.

[Cahoot]

How can there be the problem of choice when there is no choice?

You presented the option of "stop doing". If there's no option then there's no reasonable statement "stop doing". It would be illusive to say so.

You talk about change. Changes we perceive as actions. Actions are perceived as moments and events and sometimes when grouped, we perceive ourselves in the middle of them. Here the doing "presents" someone like you even when you think you're not doing. But you never did any doing anyway!

Sure there is choice.

However, that what you choose to do, is what you must do, every time. Without exception.

Therefore if self-sabotage is the choice, then self-sabotage is what you must do. It is something you must experience until you must not experience that anymore. And when you must not experience that any more, then the choices you make will no longer result in self-sabotage.

Self-sabotage is intertwined with the situation. This means that sometimes being a jerk is self-sabotage, and sometimes being a jerk is not self-sabotage, and is actually what the moment requires.

Proceeding properly within the context of a situation is part of wisdom.

"Situations are my guru."
- Trungpa Rinpoche

[Pye]

"Situations are my guru."

v'always loved this.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Proceeding properly within the context of a situation is part of wisdom.

Agree but the context of your quote was about how the situation can present "you", that is the perception of "choice" -- of forks in the road. And the question still remaining: "why bother". The bother of appropriation.

[Cahoot]

Proceeding properly within the context of a situation is part of wisdom.

Agree but the context of your quote was about how the situation can present "you", that is the perception of "choice" -- of forks in the road. And the question still remaining: "why bother". The bother of appropriation.

An interesting article about St. Francis, and why did he bother to do as he did? As with Bhagavan Nityananda, from one perspective he was loon, from another perspective, a saint.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/b ... ntPage=all

[Dennis Mahar]

The bother of appropriation

.

appropriation appropriates.
the gift of presence is the property of appropriation.

Getting around in the world distinguishing people, occasionally one shows up and from their very first utterance trust opens up and what is present is the possibility of friendship.
In the presence of friendship.
Not chosen. Just happened.

I'm 62 which means there's 10 minutes left.
I have friendships of decades in length.
We're all old.

Transitoriness sux.
We will part soon and I grieve,
For the presence of friendship I'm blown away grateful.

Transitoriness rox.
in the presence of difficult circumstances,
Not chosen. Just happened.
This too shall pass.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When you look in a mirror what does everyone see, is it you?

[Tomas]

When you look in a mirror what does everyone see, is it you?

All one sees is the reverse image of oneself.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Is it your self?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Is it the same self as 20 years ago? What happens when it dies?