What's the Point of Religion?

[Leyla Shen]

You make far too many erroneous assumptions, the actuality of which you can know nothing about, just to please yourself, Diebert.

So be it. I'll get to your nonsense later. After reply to movinalways's post, a cup of tea and my cockatiel rank higher in priority.

[Leyla Shen]

The Buddha is stark and uncompromising in his teaching, which is why it is so difficult for the mind/consciousness (existence) to dwell upon the fullness of its meaning. No wonder, to dwell upon it is to begin its walk to its cessation.

""Monks, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see. And how, monks, do some hold back? Devas and human beings delight in existence, are delighted with existence, rejoice in existence. When the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence, their minds do not enter into it, acquire confidence in it, settle upon it, or resolve upon it. Thus, monks, do some hold back. And how, monks, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same existence and they rejoice in nonexistence, saying, 'In as much as this self, good sirs, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is just so!' Thus, monks, do some overreach. And how, monks do those with vision see? Here, a monk sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practices the course for disenchantment, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, monks, do those with vision see." (It 49; 43-44)

What is being said here is quite clear to me: any thing which exists, dies (passes away, etc). Not "things are just appearances" or "things don't exist". The monk practices for disenchantment, for dispassion, as a means to not clinging onto things, which change, and transform. And that's reality.

As I recall it, Ding-dong Diebert quoted at least a part of this earlier and I questioned it because of the context it was being used in at the time. I will have to find and resolve that. Thanks for the reminder!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"This might serve to focus a conversation a bit better if it's going to be continued". Although I used a different translation.

[Leyla Shen]

Unfocussed Diebert wrote:

It clearly appears to concern you because instead of continuing the actual topic you're try to defend yourself with lots of energy!

Try? I did provide my defence. The fact that you ignore the actual defence says nothing about me, my dear. Or about how I invested my energy for the day. How about you? Did you spend lots of energy defending something you think you shouldn’t have?

You're making all kind exceptions for yourself but if I would attempt to show you how my "one liners" were in context and relevant to the argument you will certainly dismiss it. You always win! You are always right!

Actually, I clearly specified the parameters. All you had to do was make a clear demonstration that your allegation was true on the basis of those parameters. But instead you... are always right and always win this way—in your own mind.

Others are left being intensive, attacking or lacking integrity.

You have a problem dealing with specific instances of reality. Again, I have provided the means by which you can redeem yourself. If you don't agree with them, you should say why you don't agree with them. The above does not constitute a why for the means I have provided. Duh.

Reading that I can only encourage further self-examination before doing this particular victim dance again. Embrace your inner asshole and stop the bullshitting! :-)

Oh, Diebert the brave warrior sacrificing himself on behalf of the underdogs of the world? You can take on any persona and any bullshit you wish, just be ready to have it called out by me. (:

Experiences are not "delusional". So nice straw man there. It's just that the noun is considered "obvious deterioration" in any public discourse. And that's just opinion. Why does that need "proving"? Are you going to "prove" why this post made you feel insulted? Just because I repeatedly questioned your understanding of something? Jeesh, do I have to walk suddenly on egg shells or something?

Oh, I love it! The ol’ “every arsehole has an opinion”! So fucking ordinary for someone who thinks themselves so wise! Spare me the mindless arrogance! Even a patient suffering delusions is capable of becoming aware of it before his mind deteriorates too much. This is exactly the reality of delusions. But I suppose if you have an interest in asserting that things that are not there are, in reality, there and to say otherwise is just an opinion, then you won’t understand that.

D quoting L paraphrasing SNw: So, even though all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances), any reason you might have for “holding” reality as impermanent appearances are also impermanent and necessarily therefore the result of clinging!

D: But earlier in this thread I questioned that directness. Your raw information argument. It's to me nonsense, some "inherent" thing in some "moment" of experience. I think what we call reality is constructed way further along in relation to a shitload of other processes and connections.

Fucking irrelevant! I’ve said a lot more too, dummy, and that wasn’t the point of this exercise. The point of this exercise is to establish whether it qualifies as adhom. So, pay attention and stop wittingly or unwittingly scrambling everything into a meaningless and indistinct whole just to save your own sorry arse. Does the conclusion I draw here in relation to the so-called wisdom-seeker’s argument follow or not since, if it does, then the argument is, by definition, moronic as it’s not possible to glean anything intelligent from it:

by SeekerOfWisdom » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:53 pm
Yeah.

You know all you can directly experience are impermanent appearances, that's all anyone in existence has ever known.

Whatever reason your clinging to that holds these appearances (reality) as a reflection/representation, arises, then fades away just as quick, only proving the point; fleeting concepts are meaningless. Reality is not a reflection of something else.

And all appearances are transient so I'm not sure why you quoted that above.


L: So, even though all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances), any reason you might have for “holding” reality as impermanent appearances are also impermanent and necessarily therefore the result of clinging!

CONCLUSION: Meaning, his argument defeats itself.

And I further ask you this: what is the difference between the arguer and the argument that could give rise to a situation where an attack on the arguer is not the same as an attack on the argument?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's just not a very interesting discussion, Leyla, to analyze who has been rude here or provided "ad hominens". We clearly differ even on what those terms mean here. So it stops right there.

But when I wrote "experiences are not delusional", I meant that the delusion is not the experience. It's really being experienced, no matter how true or fake or imagined it is. So perhaps I should have written "experiences themselves can never be called delusional". Of course someone can experience a delusion, a fever, a hissy fit or a flash of insight. It's all really happening.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

It's just not a very interesting discussion, Leyla, to analyze who has been rude here or provided "ad hominens". We clearly differ even on what those terms mean here. So it stops right there.

I beg to differ! But, yes, for you it’s a question of conventional morality; conservative. It’s bourgeois.

But when I wrote "experiences are not delusional", I meant that the delusion is not the experience. It's really being experienced, no matter how true or fake or imagined it is. So perhaps I should have written "experiences themselves can never be called delusional". Of course someone can experience a delusion, a fever, a hissy fit or a flash of insight. It's all really happening.

And yet you don’t have the integrity to retract your false charge and admit that the only straw man there was the one made by you, since there was no claim by me that experiences are delusional; what was there was a distinction between delusion and reality:

So, even though all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances), any reason you might have for “holding” reality as impermanent appearances are also impermanent and necessarily therefore the result of clinging!

Meaning, his argument defeats itself.

Now, would you care to tell me on what grounds my experience of a moron was delusional rather than real? Please provide your supporting argument, taking care to actually present as an argument anything new; i.e., outside of a rebuttal of the existing argument/counter-argument.

Thanks for the argument. (:

[Dennis Mahar]

So, even though all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances), any reason you might have for “holding” reality as impermanent appearances are also impermanent and necessarily therefore the result of clinging!

Meaning, his argument defeats itself.

Now, would you care to tell me on what grounds my experience of a moron was delusional rather than real? Please provide your supporting argument, taking care to actually present as an argument anything new; i.e., outside of a rebuttal of the existing argument/counter-argument.

The argument may have some merit Leyla except from the generative possibility of a kind of thinking that thinks about thinking, that asks what is 'held' in the argument, what is 'held' is a belittling of a ....it's a 'cling shot'.

The direction of Philosophy is a 'toward harmonious relations' between all peoples.
Philosophy is an act of generosity.

impermanent appearances is a philosophical declaration.

what is it that goes unrecognised in the holding of that declaration?

what does it open up?
what does it set in train by implication?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

there was no claim by me that experiences are delusional; what was there was a distinction between delusion and reality:

Well, I mentioned your "straw man" argument, not claim. I hope you know the difference. You asserted a false dilemma, a choice for me to make that seemed unrelated to the point. Here:

would you care to tell me on what grounds my experience of a moron was delusional rather than real? Please provide your supporting argument, taking care to actually present as an argument anything new; i.e., outside of a rebuttal of the existing argument/counter-argument.

You ask here me to tell me why or how your experience of a moron was delusional or real.

I answered that your experience was just that since I never challenged it. Why would I argue for something I never challenged or agreed upon? Seeker talked about "impermanent belief". In my view every assertion can and will be opposed but using the term "moron" was just a needless insertion of an attack. That's what the word means and is normally used for. And I've no problems with attacks but you suggest you experienced some problem with my "attacking" as if it was something inappropriate. No?

[Cahoot]

So, even though all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances), any reason you might have for “holding” reality as impermanent appearances are also impermanent and necessarily therefore the result of clinging!

Meaning, his argument defeats itself.

Now, would you care to tell me on what grounds my experience of a moron was delusional rather than real? Please provide your supporting argument, taking care to actually present as an argument anything new; i.e., outside of a rebuttal of the existing argument/counter-argument.

The argument may have some merit Leyla except from the generative possibility of a kind of thinking that thinks about thinking, that asks what is 'held' in the argument, what is 'held' is a belittling of a ....it's a 'cling shot'.

The direction of Philosophy is a 'toward harmonious relations' between all peoples.
Philosophy is an act of generosity.

impermanent appearances is a philosophical declaration.

what is it that goes unrecognised in the holding of that declaration?

what does it open up?
what does it set in train by implication?

The implications begin pre-argument, with the premise, which states: “all you can directly experience is reality (impermanent appearances).”

The premise is unflawed if the absolute is impermanent appearance, or if the absolute cannot be directly experienced.

Thus the premise places either or both of those conditions upon reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

radiant mind

don't leave home without it.

[Leyla Shen]

That’s right, Cahoot.

So, it is asked, since by “all” (there is this and nothing else) is implied reality itself, is reality:

1. Impermanent appearances; OR
2. Unable to be directly experienced.

Since, if (2) is true, then it follows from these premises that all experience is deluded; and likewise, if (1) is true, then it follows logically from these premises that reality is not what we experience.

Therefore, the question: was my experience of a moron a delusion because reality cannot be directly experienced, or was it real because it is an impermanent appearance.

[Russell Parr]

So, it is asked, since by “all” (there is this and nothing else) is implied reality itself, is reality:

1. Impermanent appearances; OR
2. Unable to be directly experienced.

One always directly experiences reality. Delusions arise with false interpretations of one's experience. All things are impermanent appearances of subjective experience. The 'All' is not a thing, so it cannot be an "impermanent appearance."

Whether or not you 'experienced a moron' is an obvious yes, not because it holds some sort of ultimate reality, but only in that it describes your experience.

[Leyla Shen]

Hi, Russell.

One always directly experiences reality.

Agreed. Premise (2) is false.

An “indirect experience of reality” implies a thing distinctly separate/external to reality and incapable of experiencing reality itself therefore. So, the further question arises, “What is outside of reality?” God? Immortal soul? Ghosts? Or maybe, humans?

Of course, I am always open to hearing a valid argument, if one indeed exists.

Delusions arise with false interpretations of one's experience.

But if it’s true that one always directly experiences reality, it’s not possible to interpret one’s own experience of it falsely, since all interpretations are, in reality, caused. If this were not so, the deluded person literally would not be deluded; that is his direct experience.

I’d like to see what you have to say in reply to this before I address the remainder of your post.

[Russell Parr]

Delusions arise with false interpretations of one's experience.

But if it’s true that one always directly experiences reality, it’s not possible to interpret one’s own experience of it falsely, since all interpretations are, in reality, caused. If this were not so, the deluded person literally would not be deluded; that is his direct experience.

It's true that delusion doesn't exist in the 'nuts and bolts' of causation. But 'delusion' certainly exists as a concept which describes false interpretations. 'Delusion' doesn't describe the causal processes that make up his interpretations, but describes whether or not the end product represents accurate knowledge of the given subject.

If a delusional person doesn't know he's delusional, he's still delusional.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

1. Impermanent appearances; OR
2. Unable to be directly experienced.

Since, if (2) is true, then it follows from these premises that all experience is deluded; and likewise, if (1) is true, then it follows logically from these premises that reality is not what we experience.

Leyla you are just making shit up and acting as if anyone else wrote it then arguing against yourself. We all know your egotistically clinging to a grudge and can't stop, no need to keep shoving it in everyone's faces, it's damn obvious enough with your court case.

I said you cling to the belief that what you experience is a representation/reflection that began as 'raw sense data' and has been interpreted or some bullshit. That's a delusion.

for the cessation of existence

Moving, previously we were talking about the line 'cessation of the craving for existence', I wonder how you 'see' the shorter line?

[Leyla Shen]

Russell:

It's true that delusion doesn't exist in the 'nuts and bolts' of causation. But 'delusion' certainly exists as a concept which describes false interpretations. 'Delusion' doesn't describe the causal processes that make up his interpretations, but describes whether or not the end product represents accurate knowledge of the given subject.

If a delusional person doesn't know he's delusional, he's still delusional.

Agreed.

All things are impermanent appearances of subjective experience.

Would it not be more truthful to say that all things are impermanent appearances of subjective/objective experience?

I bring to mind here something touched on in another thread; the proposition that the All/Totality is “beyond meaning”. I raise it here in this context because of the problematic nature of that statement. The All/Totality is only beyond dualistic reasoning. In other words, it has meaning to anyone who actually reads it until an attempt is made to argue for its existence. When we apply our thinking to it, it defies cognitive expression because thought itself is dualistic by nature.

And so (at the very best), you get something like this:

The 'All' is not a thing, so it cannot be an "impermanent appearance."

~

Whether or not you 'experienced a moron' is an obvious yes, not because it holds some sort of ultimate reality, but only in that it describes your experience.

It certainly does describe my experience, yes. And it describes it on the basis of reason; that is, as a conclusion derived from a sound argument comprising a set of logically and empirically verifiable premises, which remain unrefuted.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
for the cessation of existence

Seeker: Moving, previously we were talking about the line 'cessation of the craving for existence', I wonder how you 'see' the shorter line?

To exist is to crave, to crave is to exist, therefore, I see no difference between the two statements.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

A literal statement then? The cessation of eating, walking, being, existing?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One always directly experiences reality.

Russell, what do you mean with a direct experience? Like some unfiltered, pure "as is"-ness? Why not just say "one always experiences". Whatever it is we're experiencing, there's no way to distinguish between direct and indirect experiencing or real and unreal ones. There's only experiencing in any case. The syntax is important here because of what is implied with the extra words, everything that is "smuggled" into a back-door, so to speak.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whether or not you 'experienced a moron' is an obvious yes, not because it holds some sort of ultimate reality, but only in that it describes your experience.

But the (non)question was if it was experienced as "delusion" or "reality". I'm not sure why the question keeps changing. Perhaps Seeker is right, somebody is arguing against herself and is holding a grudge because she thinks it was implied she was stupid. Now we get just a round of as you say "obvious" no-brain exchanges which have nothing to do with the earlier exchanges about suffering. Just saying...

[Leyla Shen]

I'm not sure why the question keeps changing.

It's because you lack focus and proper discernment that you suffer this difficulty, my dear.

[Leyla Shen]

Russell, what do you mean with a direct experience? Like some unfiltered, pure "as is"-ness? Why not just say "one always experiences". Whatever it is we're experiencing, there's no way to distinguish between direct and indirect experiencing or real and unreal ones. There's only experiencing in any case. The syntax is important here because of what is implied with the extra words, everything that is "smuggled" into a back-door, so to speak.

But the (non)question was if it was experienced as "delusion" or "reality". I'm not sure why the question keeps changing. Perhaps Seeker is right, somebody is arguing against herself and is holding a grudge because she thinks it was implied she was stupid.

Really? Are you sure? Oh no, that's right -- you can't be sure of anything because "there's only experience in any case".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm not sure why the question keeps changing.

It's because you lack focus and proper discernment that you suffer this difficulty, my dear.

Another post without content but only filled with reflection on my personal state. And then wondering why people think you have a bone to pick?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Really? Are you sure? Oh no, that's right -- you can't be sure of anything because "there's only experience in any case".

You can be sure you're having experiences. At the forum it's sometimes called A=A.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm not wondering about anything.

I have presented my arguments. Russell is addressing it. The rest is obvious.