What's the Point of Religion?

[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"?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ultimate Sigh...

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.

But you were talking earlier about "raw information". That's what I was talking about, not about the Whole Arising Fucking Universe that supports it! This is what you said:

In the case of sense data then, it means the information received by the senses before it is systematized into the form of meaning (a complex of associated/differentiated data); concepts, imagery, abstraction.

And now you say temperature only informs us when it's compared to something, for example with your associated data. So there's no informing going on at in the sense data itself!

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

You call sense data "raw information" which lives somewhere in the senses or the senses are informed or set alight by this data. And just now you even say that the world is being sensed. That the world lives somewhere in this "raw information" before it's differentiated by the meaning/association machine. What world is that then? Who lives in it? What do you know about it? The raw data is irrelevant really, it could be just as well Mu!

It's about precision here. We have to make sure we mean somewhat the same when speaking about concepts like 'world' and 'information'.

And to rewind a bit: your claim that the Vedanta (Seeker was quoting) was saying sense data is false somehow when it was just stated that what is seen "is not there" stems from the confusion outlined above. So this is very relevant to unwind as far as it goes!

[Leyla Shen]

The raw data is irrelevant really, it could be just as well Mu!

Spoken to any dead bodies or the dearly departed lately, Diebert?

And to rewind a bit: your claim that the Vedanta (Seeker was quoting) was saying sense data is false somehow when it was just stated that what is seen "is not there" stems from the confusion outlined above. So this is very relevant to unwind as far as it goes!

Yes, let's rewind. Be right back...

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, it's a goldmine!

Going to take a bit longer to organise.

Hold on to your panties, Diebert! ((((:

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The raw data is irrelevant really, it could be just as well Mu!

Spoken to any dead bodies or the dearly departed lately, Diebert?

It's all I'm doing really :-)

[Leyla Shen]

Lol

Well, I can certainly testify to the truth of the latter statement! As for the former, I've told you before to stay away from those graveyards!

[Cahoot]

The raw data is irrelevant really, it could be just as well Mu!

Spoken to any dead bodies or the dearly departed lately, Diebert?

It's all I'm doing really :-)

There be truth in humor. For egos habituated to projecting their anthropomorphic limitations upon a perceived other there’s no differentiation in projecting upon a human, a corpse, an animal, a soccer ball (Mr. Wilson), or a conceptual deity. Tis a common error of delusion, fully manifested in the self-appointed arbiter.
*

there's nothing to fix.

Si. Based on the premise: reality is unborn, ever-existent and thus changeless; identity shifting away from the transitory to the changeless is shifting to a broader perspective of existence, a view more encompassing than, and encompassing of, an identity based on the awareness afforded by the limitations of ego’s relationship with transitory phenomena, where stuff gets fixed, though due to the encompassing nature of reality, stuff does get fixed.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert: So as long it's considered temporary and fleeting we all can indulge in ego, fiction, entertainment... I mean it's just for a few moments right?

Cahoot: No. Those happenings lead to suffering when phenomena are erroneously experienced as permanent. Pay attention.

Diebert: How would you describe the experience of some phenomena being "permanent" instead of temporary or empty? What exactly is being permanent in each instance? We all know that nothing lasts forever, right?

Seeker of Non-wisdom: Yeah he makes a point, one isn't experiencing them as permanent as the point is that can't happen for what is impermanent, or experiencing them as self-existing since they are not. It is simply to be immersed,settled, attached to the experience at hand. This immersion is what leads to erroneous belief in the nature of the phenomena. Sensory desire, distraction,attachment is what obscures a wakefulness of impermanence. Though I do agree to experience these as they are, empty,is to be released from the apparent identity such as "suffering".

At this point, the proposition is that since “everybody knows nothing lasts forever by experience” it cannot follow that impermanent things can be experienced as permanent (1). What is ostensibly asserted as true instead is that one is [still somehow!] “immersed, settled, attached to the experience at hand (!?) and this leads to an erroneous belief in the nature of the phenomena” (2).

(1) and (2) are flat-out contradictory and exactly an example of experiencing impermanence as permanence but despite this, he goes on to assert the reason for this as: "Sensory desire, distraction,attachment is what obscures a wakefulness [cognitive apprehension] of impermanence."

And he crystalises his belief with the following quote:

I'll quote that same sage, "The only cure is to realize what is seen is not there", a deception.

Hence, I came in with:

In other words, Cahoot, the idealists are suggesting that the senses/sensory data is false.

Now, since I want to nail this before it gets beyond a joke (again), before I go on, do you have any objection to or questions regarding exactly and only what is here, as stated and in this context, so far?

[Dennis Mahar]

simplify the syllogism cahoot.

better still,
what's broken.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

At this point, the proposition is that since “everybody knows nothing lasts forever by experience” it cannot follow that impermanent things can be experienced as permanent (1). What is ostensibly asserted as true instead is that one is [still somehow!] “immersed, settled, attached to the experience at hand (!?) and this leads to an erroneous belief in the nature of the phenomena” (2).

(1) and (2) are flat-out contradictory and exactly an example of experiencing impermanence as permanence but despite this, he goes on to assert the reason for this as: "Sensory desire, distraction,attachment is what obscures a wakefulness [cognitive apprehension] of impermanence."

Your statement that they are contradictory is false. The first says exactly "one isn't experiencing them as permanent as the point is that can't happen for what is impermanent".
Which is in reply to Cahoot writing "when phenomena are erroneously experienced as permanent".( This can't happen and is false, you can't experience something that is impermanent 'as permanent'.)

The second says exactly "this immersion is what leads to erroneous belief in the nature of the phenomena".
Which isn't contradictory as the first said 'experienced', the second says, 'a belief'.
It is very possible to believe or think that phenomena are lasting or permanent, even though they are not. It is not possible to experience them 'as permanent'. No contradiction. Find something else to misinterpret.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

do you have any objection to or questions regarding exactly and only what is here, as stated and in this context, so far?

With the caveat that the first line in your first quotation box was just my interpretation of what Cahoot seemed to imply: that impermanence was about certain living and dead "things" and common situations. So as long we would "know" something is not permanent, that we'd not be fooled somehow. Indeed contradictory to the problem of suffering and ego, simply because they still abide no matter how brief they might seem to last.

Perhaps it's where you might get the proposition from : (1) “everybody knows nothing lasts forever by experience”? Seeker appears to translate permanency only as immersion, setting and attaching to any ongoing experience ("moment"). That's a bit different from "knowing that nothing lasts forever" which is a whole another type of roundabout knowledge, like "wisdom for corpses".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Reading Seeker's post just now and I agree with it.

[Cahoot]

One may intellectually know that phenomena does not last forever and still erroneously perceive phenomena as permanent.

At this point, the proposition is that since “everybody knows nothing lasts forever by experience” it cannot follow that impermanent things can be experienced as permanent (1).

*
Impermanent things being experienced as permanent is as ubiquitous as suffering.

For example, you fall in luv. You want this luv to last forever, just as it is, and though intellectually you know it won’t, you still want it to and assume permanence of luv phenomena (probably because you think your luv is so special and unique it will last forever.) You are experiencing transitory, projection-influenced possessive luv as something permanent. When phenomena changes and the luv doesn’t last forever, you suffer.

Then you write a hit song about your suffering and the ensuing phenomena of cash eases the sting of suffering from luv lost. Or you do other things.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When phenomena changes and the luv doesn’t last forever, you suffer.

There's a whole other level you can take this. Phenomena happen right now and you're acting as if they're "becoming" right now. And you still suffer right now because of that!

Learn to forget about the forest: check out this tree. Study the leaves and nerves. Find the roots. Only then you will truly understand about the forest (and luv).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

And just now you even say that the world is being sensed. That the world lives somewhere in this "raw information" before it's differentiated by the meaning/association machine. What world is that then? Who lives in it? What do you know about it?

Perfect. She's talking about a world that exists in her imagination.

Despite the fact that 'world' is a reference to certain appearances, not a reference to 'what appearances are (apparently) reflecting'.

Again, the only cure to these delusions is to realize what is seen(what appears) isn't there. (Isn't a reflection of independently existing objects that have been interpreted via an imaginary machine.)
Only the appearances exist, it isn't hard. If you stop clinging to specific appearances or concepts, what remains always? Just appearances. Very easy.

Impermanent things being experienced as permanent

It's nothing but a problem of language, clearly he isn't confused and is only making the point that people act as if they are permanent, or hold the erroneous belief that they are. "As" if they are.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Only the appearances exist, it isn't hard. If you stop clinging to specific appearances or concepts, what remains always? Just appearances. Very easy.

This is where you can perhaps still advance. There are the illusions of sense-becoming, form-becoming and formless-becoming. You are still having appearances becoming (existing). At a finer level, a deeper attention, they will fall apart too. Formlessness remains but also this is a becoming only as result of seeing the other two as they are.

[Cahoot]

When phenomena changes and the luv doesn’t last forever, you suffer.

There's a whole other level you can take this. Phenomena happen right now and you're acting as if they're "becoming" right now. And you still suffer right now because of that!

Learn to forget about the forest: check out this tree. Study the leaves and nerves. Find the roots. Only then you will truly understand about the forest (and luv).

You're in luv with a tree?
You should get out more.
Ha ha, ho ho, he he.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You're in luv with a tree?
You should get out more.
Ha ha, ho ho, he he.

Hmm, you might be too dumb for the conversation I'm trying to have here. Have you any idea about Buddhism really? Suffering because of "love not lasting forever". It's kid's stuff again from you. There's a whole world of hurt waiting for you if you want to get serious. It's already there in your limping jokes, so it's a matter of you wanting to introspect or not. For now you're on the block list as I've no time for this.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There are the illusions of sense-becoming, form-becoming and formless-becoming. You are still having appearances becoming (existing).
...
Formlessness remains but also this is a becoming only as result of seeing the other two as they are.

Are you saying then that appearances don't exist or? I need clarification on 'the illusions of sense-becoming'.

[Cahoot]

simplify the syllogism cahoot.

better still,
what's broken.

The water heater on my travel trailer.

[Cahoot]

You're in luv with a tree?
You should get out more.
Ha ha, ho ho, he he.

Hmm, you might be too dumb for the conversation I'm trying to have here. Have you any idea about Buddhism really? Suffering because of "love not lasting forever". It's kid's stuff again from you. There's a whole world of hurt waiting for you if you want to get serious. It's already there in your limping jokes, so it's a matter of you wanting to introspect or not. For now you're on the block list as I've no time for this.

Ah. The arbiter says now is not the time for laughing. You let us know when the time is right. Ok?

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against trees, and if that's your thing, well ... I guess it's something you gotta do.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Are you saying then that appearances don't exist or? I need clarification on 'the illusions of sense-becoming'.

What are appearances for you? I guess this is all about assigning actuality, being or even "world" to something, the moment consciousness "lands" on anything. Even assigning "formlessness" is still a being and a doing. There's then still the actuality of "no actual form".

And what do you do exactly when saying "this or that exists". What do you add?

[Dennis Mahar]

The water heater on my travel trailer.

such is the way of it.

what's broken?

you won't be able to prove brokenness.

[Leyla Shen]

So suffering is the result of being "immersed in the experience at hand" which leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are permanent, even though one is experiencing phenomena as impermanent, and it follows from this that the solution to suffering and the truth of emptiness is to realise that what you see isn’t there? Tell me, what is it that such a one sees?

[Leyla Shen]

Reading Seeker's post just now and I agree with it.

Excellent. I expect you'll have no trouble answering my last question, then!