Earth is Paradise

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It is true that Dennis puts everyone under inquiry but isn't under inquiry from anyone else.

But neither are you brad.

Otherwise I would start asking you both a bunch of questions about your opinion on ultimate reality haha

[Dennis Mahar]

Brad,
taking the Trickster seriously is the 'tickled pink' for the Trickster.
It's the 'getting of itself'.

[brad walker]

We'll see! Ralph Nader: "Turn onto the Trickster or the Trickster will turn on you."

[guest_of_logic]

I've died at least 400 times, those are only the one's I've had enough recollection to have seen and remembered.

Are you being serious, referring to literal deaths after which you literally reincarnated? If you are, I'm interested. How did you recollect them? And have you made any attempt to verify any of your past identities through historical documents like birth records etc?

[Dennis Mahar]

If the trickster is operating and no one is taking it seriously,
there's no foothold for it.

The trickster, logically, gets its rocks off when its being taken seriously.

We'll see!

You see what you see.
that's your business.

Trickster, like anything else can't earn my trust ever.
earning trust is a useless distinction.

I can only give my trust as a context.

if somebody speaks or writes something,
from the very first syllable of their utterance,
the possibility of trust is resolved.

it has wings or it stays on the tarmac.

[brad walker]

If the trickster is operating and no one is taking it seriously,
there's no foothold for it.

And yet it did, for several pages!

You see what you see.
that's your business.

The Trickster makes what it sees your business for your benefit; that's its function.

Trickster, like anything else can't earn my trust ever.
earning trust is a useless distinction.

Why didn't you just Foe me once I revealed the troll?

I'm able to cooperate with others here without trust, why can't you? It's quite fun!

[Dennis Mahar]

Because my instinct for trust,
has the context for you as 'trustworthy'.

you know stuff!

[brad walker]

So you trust the Trickster? Then you must take it seriously.

[Dennis Mahar]

I trust you lad.
you know psychological stuff.
It's of interest.

It would be an error of thinking to grant it inherent existence.

[brad walker]

Errors happen. That's also quite fun!

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Are you being serious, referring to literal deaths after which you literally reincarnated? If you are, I'm interested. How did you recollect them? And have you made any attempt to verify any of your past identities through historical documents like birth records etc?

z

How can you have a "not literal" death? I've been shot, fell of cliffs, hit by falling debris from massive explosions, you name it, it's killed me.

Yes I literally reincarnated. (Reincarnation,death,birth, are all actually names for changing sensation)

I don't know how I remember some dreams, it just happens!

No I have not tried to verify my "past identities" as they never really existed and were only of the mind, so is this one.

"It is by no means an irrational fancy that, in a future existence, we shall look upon what we think our present existence, as a dream."
Edgar Allan Poe

[SeekerOfWisdom]

How do you, that's you Laird, determine/distinguish which experiences of sensations correlate to "real" objects and which are only imaginative?

[Dennis Mahar]

"Turn onto the Trickster or the Trickster will turn on you."

what it actually means in my book is:

the consequences born of desire.

the nature of impermanence rips the desired object from one's grasp in time.

given that, Quinn and other Sages recommend a simple Life.

[guest_of_logic]

(Taking a break from re-skinning my djembe with a synthetic skin - an odd thing to be doing on a New Year's Eve given that I don't even know any drummers to jam with here this evening, but there you have it)

How can you have a "not literal" death

By falling asleep in a reality that for argument's sake I will refer to as "normal reality" (i.e. this one in which we are communicating), dying in your dreams during that sleep, and then awakening back into the same "normal" reality you fell asleep in, and being still alive.

Does that make sense?

If so, I'd like to know whether any of your deaths have not been of that description, because deaths of that description don't interest me so much: I've experienced and remember them for myself. I don't remember any literal (i.e. not dreamt-whilst-asleep) reincarnations, but I believe it happens, so that's why I asked - to see if you have any useful evidence for it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dennis, a little recap:

Don't know inherent existence. Can't be found.

Then take something in error, bestow it existence, do the "right" thing, whatever that is, but the thing being still in error, let it go and disappear?

Some errors are quite delicious. If you can join the dots up in particular ways. I'd like some education on that one as to what "the thing being still in error" could mean. The error maker? What if the errormaker knows it is errormaking, would the errormaker be in error?

It might be interesting to boil this down to more essential terms to get it cleared up. It might appear mathematical to some but it isn't. Just a bit of abstractism. Then:

• nothing - take something in error - bestow it existence - do the "right" thing - the thing being still in error - let it go and disappear

becomes what could be called Dieb's Ah's-and-Oh's model.:

• O -> A -> B >- C -> B' -> A' -> O

From totality (O), the "error" is having a thing neceserally isolated and identified as impression (A). Then it needs "existence" because not everything needs adressing. Here existence also means "reality", something asking for a response, a question, a burning (B of burning). We come to doing a "right or wrong action" which looks like a choice (C), this is the response to the real issue (B). This works like an operator on B, or in other words reality changes (B moves on to B'). But even when doing the right thing, it's still seen as existence with unknowns and therefore error (A') and when let go we're back to square O.

Now the interesting thing of this model is that you can see three types of discussions at this forum, sometimes a bit mixed up with muddy results:

1. identity against emptyness, this is O-and-A stuff.
2. consciousness against what is/has reality, this is A vs B
3. the problem of choice, this is the question of C, what to do, what's the good and bad origin or consequence of everything including this?

For example I see Dennis mostly in #1, Seeker in #2 and Alex in #3. That's where the focus lies, it's how the terms are defined but not saying anything about how posters deal with the other areas. Now back to your question Dennis: if the error is seen as error the term "error" gains new dephts. No matter though which tricks we use to refefine error, it's still A' and will not be free of error unless undone. This is why it's true to say nothing happenened and nobody did anything.

This doesn't solve the problem of choice. A fork in the forest road appears and it's rumored one way leads to danger, the other to home. People keep asking: tell us what to do.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dieb's Ah's-and-Oh's model.:

a big bang theory :)

handy user's guide.

With Plato's injunction that a theory ought to be transformative,
I see transformative for it.
The process is described.

It's got that levels of illusion rather than levels of reality 'knowing' in it.

There's a lot of pain and a lot of pleasure available between O>O.

It's got that falling in and climbing out thang,

Advanced driver in heavy traffic.

How does one breakthru' to Buddhamind?

[brad walker]

I've died at least 400 times

Only 400? The frontman of Monster Magnet claims to have died a million times.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

SO, because you keep "returning" to guest, you think guest is what is real.

You think guest is you, and that you retain free will.

But when you look into guest, there is no guest to be found!

Does sight make up guest?

Does foot make up guest?

What makes up guest?

A combination of all transient "guest" phenomena?

guests thoughts flow constantly, even when he is sleeping, they act/react, they are a result of previous and present conditions that begun accumulating even before guests birth. Guest has no control over any of the conditions, or his surroundings, he has no influence in any of the original guest "makeup".

Guest experience will run till guest "dies".

Guest experience does not retain not-guest experience memory very well.

He doesn't even have any detectable will... meaning when thoughts are observed they flow without any presence of "chosen intention", there is no "intention" act to be found, no will, only the thoughts and the feelings.

To say there is free will is to forget that guest phenomena is not inherently existing.

It's like a cog in a machine, whatever the machine is, the cog runs according to the machines makeup, it does not run of its own accord.

Guest is like a cog designed by conditions/causality.

Guests thoughts are also mechanical and constant, they flow in unison with our sensations and really aren't very different from a sensation in themselves.



When you recognize you are not guest you will be freed from guest and guest delusion, you will stop assigning credibility to imaginations.

You are not your thoughts or guest, those are experiences, you hear/feel those, just an experience.

But again, could you see the logical flaw in making the assumption "This is the normal world, the real body and me", and saying that for the single reason that you are currently experiencing and "returning" to them now?

See that mistake?

It is "more real" than any other experience, cause I'm experiencing it now!

Yes or No, in dreams do you run away from imagined enemies not aware they are only creations of your mind?

"When we don't see the self as self, what do we have to fear? See the world as yourself"
-Lao Tzu

[guest_of_logic]

SO, because you keep "returning" to guest, you think guest is what is real.

SO, because you ignored my question, I'm going to assume the answer is, "No, Laird, none of my 'deaths' have been other than in my dreams during sleep, from which I have woken up safe and sound. Sorry to have gotten your hopes up".

[SeekerOfWisdom]

How do you distinguish between what's a "real" experience and whats only imaginative?

A question you also avoid, wonder why :b

[guest_of_logic]

How do you distinguish between what's a "real" experience and whats only imaginative?

A question you also avoid, wonder why :b

Wonder no longer: because it's a pointless question given what you're trying to drive at with it. You're trying, I believe, to get me to admit (which I freely do) that there is no infallible way to perform this distinguishing, and to conclude from that admission that therefore I ought to accept that there is no "real" and that everything is "imaginative". This is fallacious reasoning in two ways: firstly, because whilst there might not be infallible means of distinguishing, there are practical heuristics, and so distinguishing is nevertheless possible (i.e. your requirement for infallibility is too strict), secondly, because the conclusion doesn't follow even if we accept a requirement for infallibility: in the absence of a means of distinguishing, we cannot conclude anything about what's real and what's imaginative.

That said, my short answer is: through my own heuristics, which work well enough for me, and which I imagine are similar to those which the average person uses.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You are distinguishing between what's guest experience and what's not, that's easy.

I wasn't asking how you distinguish between what is guest experience and what's not,

I was asking you how you distinguish between what is imaginative and what is not?

You can think this is the "real" place(not simply imaginative), but, what is making it "real" to you?

How are these sensations experienced now differing from imaginative ones?

Are they different for you? How? For me I use all the same senses all the time... I think in the same way also...

How do you distinguish between what is a credible thought and what is an imaginative one?
You might be able to for simpler things you can empirically evidence, but what about when you have no grounds for testing such thoughts, like the idea that things exist outside of observation?

[guest_of_logic]

I wasn't asking how you distinguish between what is guest experience and what's not,

I was asking you how you distinguish between what is imaginative and what is not?

I understood exactly what you were asking, and I responded to it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Distinguishing is always possible, that doesn't mean whatever discriminations you make are true or bear relation to ultimate reality.

How could you tell which discriminations are only existing of the mind based on your perception and which truly exist in reality?