What's the Point of Religion?

[Leyla Shen]

L: It could be inferred that it means to focus on the interrelationships between senses and sensed, since one does not exist without the other and there would be an inclination in one's imagery in particular—an autonomous isolation from the other senses—to see objects as existing inherently, i.e., permanent, contained and self-caused; being and becoming.


D: So you argue for the existence of some sense-sensed combo?

"Combo"?

Please explain yourself clearly.

I argue that the things sensed and the senses are necessarily interdependent. And further that in the complex process of association/differentiation arising from this relation there is an inclination to see objects as existing independently of causes due to the imagery of wholeness present in human consciousness.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Also, I don't think you guys get it, we are the same. Each day we do the same and see the same. Can't hide or lie, young child or old child, makes no difference.

[Leyla Shen]

You may also recall, Diebert, my remark about experiencing reality as appearances as being egoistic for this reason. The imagery of wholeness, the domain of ego, is the essence of being (with which the monk attempts to become disenchanted) to avoid the delusions of (self) becoming.

[Dennis Mahar]

People operate out of dependent arising all the time because there's no other way.

Each time their Story breaks down and it hurts they go back to the drawing board and come up with a new chapter that's supposed to work out.
When chapter 6 fucked up they figure out the reason and move into chapter 7 hoping the reason chapter 6 fucked up doesn't show up in chapter 7.

Mills and Boon.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The imagery of wholeness, the domain of ego, is the essence of being (with which the monk attempts to become disenchanted) to avoid the delusions of (self) becoming.

Could you rephrase that preferably without the parentheses and the words essence and being? :] Who knows you might be saying something interesting!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

due to the imagery of wholeness present in human consciousness.

Imagery is all that's present there. Wholeness would be still a pretty good view though. Hard to come by! Takes effort.

[Dennis Mahar]

Wholeness

The mind is designed to gestalt wholeness out of parts.
meaning maker.

The quest for the perfect Mandala (whole).

Jamesh's persistent complaint that the current GF is an imperfect Mandala.
That the parts gathered within it are faulty and a redesign is called for.

An always/already mode of thinking that wants to fix the machinery.

putting the fingers in the machinery.

there's nothing to fix.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I see it as something that requires focus to develop until such awareness becomes self-perpetuating through a blatant and ongoing recognition of emptiness. Couldn't quiet forget such a thing easily.

One aspect that just has to be part of it, in terms of perpetuation, is that the whole process starts to offer something that outweighs and outshines every other interest in terms of joy, fulfilment and sufficiency. It has to become all consuming if it's going to enable one to focus on something truly. The alternative would be to be driven by only some psychological issue: disgust, itch, frustration, recoil, etc. But to abandon that what has never been tasted or embraced fully in any way is bound to fail: the obvious traps come to mind. This is where Nietzsche's Zarathustra comes in: a positive orientation at an early stage is needed to stay clear of desiring and enjoying non-becoming over becoming, non-being over being, as that would not lead any closer to the truth. Many negating philosophies and religions have formed over this temptation.

When emerging from these reveries there is almost no memory of the experience as there was very little to experience at all.

That's all there is to that: little to no experience: little to no memory: little to no time. It's really no mystery when you think about it. But a great insight into the nature of becoming is possible as for something to be there is also the flip side where it isn't, right around the turning corner.

Uncertain what could come of this kind of discussion, describing does little use when we each experience first hand. I am mostly only looking to see if a comparison of 'opinions' on the nature of non-attachment leads to a more defined direction.

You are communicating yourself and your experiences and that produces some temporary "self". It's not really to convince "others": you are self-producing and self-reflecting, then letting go. Being human! Why not excel while you're at it?

Specifically, is an end to craving and attachment an end to experiences of birth/death/'life'? Or simply an end to immersing in such experiences as if they are either part of self or 'more relevant' (self-existing, substantial things to gain or lose.)

Before answering that some more focus is needed on what is meant by all these terms. Dive in again and see if it can be reflected on even better. Would the answer not follow from there?

[Leyla Shen]

Imagery is all that's present there.

Not really. The point being that not even imagery exists inherently.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Imagery is all that's present there.

Not really. The point being that not even imagery exists inherently.

Including your finger! "The point being..." that it doesn't mean it's not referring to something.

That's what imagery could mean. At best, with all the flavors, sounds and smells.

[Leyla Shen]

Including your finger! "The point being..." that it doesn't mean it's not referring to something.

Well, um—yes. That's what I said even as you imply I did not.

So... is the problem that you would like me to say that you taught me something I wasn't already saying, or that you say it better?

That's what imagery could mean. At best, with all the flavors, sounds and smells.

"Flavors"? You mean the raw information/sense data discerned from the whole for the purpose of pointing to it?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

One aspect that just has to be part of it, in terms of perpetuation, is that the whole process starts to offer something that outweighs and outshines every other interest in terms of joy, fulfilment and sufficiency.

Yeah experiencing this kind of content liberation from attachment makes burden or desire appear utterly useless and unnecessary compared to the calm peace that comes with an awareness of the truth, unaffected. It is as something you rest 'in'. There is a natural 'love' or content 'awe' that comes with undisturbed existence, sufficiency is a good word. As if attachments only gets in the way of this blissful abiding.

Before answering that some more focus is needed on what is meant by all these terms. Dive in again and see if it can be reflected on even better. Would the answer not follow from there?

What is meant with 'craving' is that which drives one to want to go meet girls, call friends, play sports, make money, look good, secure a future, act in the world and assert oneself with each passing opportunity.
I wonder, is a complete end to this want, and end to clinging even to 'life'? The fact is that one doesn't need to continue doing or perpetuating the life of the 'self', perpetuating it is a sort of clinging.
I take 'an end to the craving for existence' as meaning one of the two 'possibilities' I referred to above.
a) 'Unsurpassed void', non-being, not returning or settling on any experience, no craving for anything. The possibility of an existence comprised of only that timeless unawareness one knows in 'the dark' (Which is as far as I will go describing that which we can't describe). I don't see this as being the most 'likely', but can't dismiss it as a possibility, having spent so much 'time' in such a state without attachment to particular forms.
b) Simply not-doing, non-action (non-attachment in which there is the awareness that one isn't in control of the passing experience, isn't part of it, not the self, no free will, not 'me' participating in the survival options, a non-inclusive show of form)
Does that clarify the 'issue'? You quoted that life itself means suffering, the possibilities I'm describing are between the end of suffering meaning end to life as it is, (being,doing, eating,surviving) or simply an end to attachment to life and the self-aspect of these experiences. I 'support' the second as a possibility for the end of suffering. Dennis might say the way is to end discrimination and preference/aversion rather than to 'trash life'.

[Dennis Mahar]

You care so much about not caring seeker, your version of not caring goes thru' the roof on the richter scale of caring.
You need a script enhancement coach.

Reading your posts an appearance arises dependently.
it's not in any one word nor in the words collectively.
It arises out of that.
Take one word out and it disappears.

the appearance is untold depths of caring.
that's OK,
just don't try and sell the little sister.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Flavors"? You mean the raw information/sense data discerned from the whole for the purpose of pointing to it?

There's the problem. What you call "raw" or sense data here in my view doesn't come even close to "raw" or fundamental, not at the finer grained level of consciousness.

As long as you believe in the existence of "information received by the senses before it is systematized into the form of meaning", without giving any reasoning on what this might be or how to experience it and talk about it, then there's no way we can discuss the issue of sensuality-becoming here. Which is the only reason I talk in this thread.

[Leyla Shen]

Hello, Diebert.

You mean I have to explain the conventional understandings of every term I use? I’m sure you can see how ridiculous that is.

So, I will ask you this: using the conventional definition of senses, which of course includes sense data involved in sensation and perception (external and internal sensory systems) and moving from there, what is the problem given that those senses are being posited as raw data receptors. Did I need to specify physiological?

Alternatively, you may provide an actual counter-argument to the theory.

You know, the one you’re not disclosing that supports these assertions:

There's the problem. What you call "raw" or sense data here in my view doesn't come even close to "raw" or fundamental, not at the finer grained level of consciousness.

As long as you believe in the existence of "information received by the senses before it is systematized into the form of meaning", without giving any reasoning on what this might be or how to experience it and talk about it, then there's no way we can discuss the issue of sensuality-becoming here. Which is the only reason I talk in this thread.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

that's your opinion, personally, above is the closest I come to openly trying to describe things as I see them, despite it only including meager pointers. Whatever you may think, all I see is impermanent actions devoid of any chosen intention or will, call them survival options if you like, didn't write this or that, not that person, don't contain any characteristics of personality.

Im not so unaware to not notice this proves the point. The fact is, and it is a fact, you will and would reply with the same implication, "defence" no matter the reply, or not reply. See how this fact makes your implication of the nature 'speak without thinking'?

See how I've just done the same? Now any reply you give, such as no reply or "hot diggetty" or a description of my blatant struggle for survival, all proves the same point "I would have done this anyway". Maybe you are a nut- kidding.

I've said it before, you contribute to the idiotic psychological guessing most everyone else does without realizing you are thus supporting that you're an egotistical idiot with only a few set lines. Since all this guessing holds accuracy. How's that for caring?
Appearances are meaningless, I heard, since I don't give a duck if there were ten years of concentrated insults, I'd post the same, without intention.

[Leyla Shen]

You care so much about not caring seeker, your version of not caring goes thru' the roof on the richter scale of caring.
You need a script enhancement coach.

Reading your posts an appearance arises dependently.
it's not in any one word nor in the words collectively.
It arises out of that.
Take one word out and it disappears.

the appearance is untold depths of caring.
that's OK,
just don't try and sell the little sister.

An astute observation.

Cheers, big brother. (:

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... the possibilities I'm describing are between the end of suffering meaning end to life as it is, (being,doing, eating,surviving) or simply an end to attachment to life and the self-aspect of these experiences. I 'support' the second as a possibility for the end of suffering.

End to "life" or end to "attachment" are to me both problematic as terms. What about the end of the production of suffering. This bhava which can be called "being" or "becoming" would be like a doing, a "doing in anticipation of what will become" (Bhikkhu). This process of becoming works on the razor sharp edge between psychology, reality constructs and "real life" issues like birth, dying, pleasure, suffering or desiring. It's something which can be diminished and even stopped completely: non-doing, non-being, non-becoming. It's a kind of interruption of the karmic wheel but it doesn't affect any ability to act. Actually it opens the up the possibility of real spontaneity and true responses; true to however a situation happens to pan out.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You mean I have to explain the conventional understandings of every term I use? I’m sure you can see how ridiculous that is.

It's just that I'm not familiar with the idea of "information received by the senses before it is systematized into the form of meaning". There are no conventional understandings of what this "information" is or at which stage it would become meaningful. So I think you're introducing a fictional fact, unfalsifiable like a religious point, to support your argument.

So, I will ask you this: using the conventional definition of senses, which of course includes sense data involved in sensation and perception (external and internal sensory systems) and moving from there, what is the problem given that those senses are being posited as raw data receptors. Did I need to specify physiological?

I thought this was about it being "false", "true", "real" or "unreal"? And the "sense data" (of that which is seen) and the complex of meanings and responses to it: indeed there's no meaningful distinction between the two! They should not be separated in this discussion simply because it's not needed and possibly even illusive.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cheers, big brother. (:

the play of being is gorgeous ain't it?

blithe Spirit Leyla

fortune favours

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert,

I am not going to repeat what I have already stated. To give you a clear example of what I mean by this, you said:

It's just that I'm not familiar with the idea of "information received by the senses before it is systematized into the form of meaning". There are no conventional understandings of what this "information" is or at which stage it would become meaningful. So I think you're introducing a fictional fact, unfalsifiable like a religious point, to support your argument.

And this was a supposedly reasonable reply to my post which included the following:

Alternatively, you may provide an actual counter-argument to the theory.

And after which, in your post to SNW, you asserted as meaningful (unlike anything I've said):

Actually it opens the up the possibility of real spontaneity and true responses; true to however a situation happens to pan out.

If you're interested in demonstrating actual problems with the premises upon which I operate and how they differ from those implicit in your own without contradicting yourself, go ahead.

Otherwise, if you can't see the problem, I'll happily leave you to your own self-aggrandizing posturing. :)

[Leyla Shen]

And I note with sheer joy how you replaced the word "perception" with "situation"...

[Leyla Shen]

I believe you said, "how the situation is perceived to be", no?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you're interested in demonstrating actual problems with the premises upon which I operate and how they differ from those implicit in your own without contradicting yourself, go ahead.

Sigh, I don't have to prove your assertions. You claim that there's "information" being received by the senses before any "systematization" into the form of meaning. That's to me not a usuable notion, not in science, not in philosophy. It would be like saying: there's a real world out there which you can't deny. Yeah well, but it doesn't inform us yet, let alone usuable as philosophical argument about truth, meaning and realities.

So what I'm saying is that there's no way to continue the discussion unless you can make the case for the premise you so conveniently keep asserting as religious dogma. You don't even allow for it to be challenged!

I'll happily leave you to your own self-aggrandizing posturing. :)

Are we going to do an "Alex" now? I knew it! L.O.L.

And I note with sheer joy how you replaced the word "perception" with "situation"... I believe you said, "how the situation is perceived to be", no?

It ends up being the same for most cases, not? But it didn't seem a good choice to use just the word "perceived" in this context. The situation develops and causes whatever circumstance to arise, including the perceptions. There's more happening than the becoming of sense, form and formlessness. But that's all we can really know.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert,

[bigger sigh]

Sigh, I don't have to prove your assertions.

I never asked you to.

You claim that there's "information" being received by the senses before any "systematization" into the form of meaning. That's to me not a usuable notion, not in science, not in philosophy. It would be like saying: there's a real world out there which you can't deny.

No, the world being sensed informs the senses (how about you tell me the temperature of a thing before you've touched it, compared it to other things that have been touched or had the temperature measured, etc) as sensation and perception. I have no compunction to, nor did I ever, assert that the world being sensed ("out there") and the senses are mutually exclusive! In fact, as things, I have said they are necessarily interdependent.

Yeah well, but it doesn't inform us yet, let alone usuable as philosophical argument about truth, meaning and realities.

And I suggested that "it informed 'us' yet" where, exactly?

Who is "us"?