What's the Point of Religion?

[Leyla Shen]

What I'm experiencing at this moment is a moron. Sure, it's empty; which is why it is possible.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert posed the question:

How would you describe the experience of some phenomena being "permanent" instead of temporary or empty?

Seeker of Non-wisdom provided an example:

You are experiencing appearances, they exist, that's what you know, that is reality.[...]

[SeekerOfWisdom]

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.

[Leyla Shen]

Notice how he argues with himself:

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.

He doesn't get what was said, a) because he doesn't think, and b) because, therefore, he is a walking contradiction. Oft times, he will assert that the self does not exist, yet fail to comprehend the contradiction in asserting the idea there is a “thing” which experiences appearances as reality, no less!

That thing which experiences existence as appearance/s , as the Ultimate Reflection, is ego.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

data is false.

What does that mean exactly, that the data is 'false'?

It’s pretty straightforward, really. It means raw information.

What the fuck means "raw information"? Information is by definition never "raw". Raw just means we have no idea about what it is, but only the most basic qualifiers (for example "it's somwhere there and it's a lot: now that is as far as raw takes you: minimal massage).

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.

There's no reason to believe there's a way to talk about this "raw sense" before it's being systematized. The senses just do not work that way. So we have electronic pulses on a measuring device, so what? That's not your 'raw sense'. Your experience of that, complete with associations, memories, reflexes and interpretations is the rawest you can get. And on top of that a couple of more subtle abstracts to be able to get a grip on them. But there's no low level here, just a murky, shifty, less processed level which is just not "really there" either in the sense one could isolate it or define it properly.

The assertion, for example, "The only cure is to realize what is seen is not there" as it stands, presupposes that all sensory data is necessarily false, since “to see” requires first the sense data (of that which is seen) and next the complex of meaning, and it makes no distinction between the two.

Therefore, that’s not "the cure", it’s actually a deception.

This I generally would agree with. But the crux lies in the meaning of something "not being there". What is exactly being said? This is exactly the focus I try to get: what is this becoming and how does it differ from "plain" perception" (if that even would be there)? What I'm aiming for is to get to "see" how something becomes, not trying to eradicate it but learning to see the coming and going of consciousness itself.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Who said there is a thing experiencing appearances? I said there are only appearances and nothing else. Nothing exists save for the reality you know each day, these appearances are not a representation of things existing independently from the experience, it is not a reflection that has been processed via body/brain.

There is the experience of form arising from *void*, that is the fundamental nature of existence.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

What the fuck means "raw information"?

It means fuck you, that’s what.

(Well, actually, no it doesn’t—that’s not raw. But, I couldn’t resist.)

Raw just means we have no idea about what it is, [snip]

I already defined it:

"In the case of sense data then, it means the information received by the senses before it is systematised into the form of meaning (a complex of associated/differentiated data); concepts, imagery, abstraction. (Naturally, this only holds if you value coherent thinking and accept the obvious truth that we are experiencing things.)"

Interdependence of the body on other things, and vice versa; sound, light, temperature, texture, weight, and so on.

...but only the most basic qualifiers (for example "it's somwhere there and it's a lot: now that is as far as raw takes you: minimal massage).

Haha! Very funny!

I’m sorry, that’s your limitation. A raw massage is something else entirely and quite obviously involves a complex of association/differentiation if it’s going to be a great massage in the raw.

There's no reason to believe there's a way to talk about this "raw sense" before it's being systematized.

I just did.

L: The assertion, for example, "The only cure is to realize what is seen is not there" as it stands, presupposes that all sensory data is necessarily false, since “to see” requires first the sense data (of that which is seen) and next the complex of meaning, and it makes no distinction between the two.

Therefore, that’s not "the cure", it’s actually a deception.

D: This I generally would agree with. But the crux lies in the meaning of something "not being there". What is exactly being said?

It could be inferred (with some explanatory additives such as I've provided) 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.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, and PS: stop looking at my fucking finger!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I already defined it:

"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. (Naturally, this only holds if you value coherent thinking and accept the obvious truth that we are experiencing things.)"

Interdependence of the body on other things, and vice versa; sound, light, temperature, texture, weight, and so on.

You defined something what doesn't seem to exist. Where is that unsystematic sense information? You seem to be talking about ghosts and inherently existing sense 'things'.

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.

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

Oh, and PS: stop looking at my fucking finger!

Stop waving it around then!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You defined something what doesn't seem to exist. Where is that unsystematic sense information? You seem to be talking about ghosts and inherently existing sense 'things'.

:) Reason! What is 'sense data' before it's experienced as the senses?

But the crux lies in the meaning of something "not being there". What is exactly being said?

Whether 'sense data' is received before presenting itself as appearances or not, it remains that what we see 'isn't there'. Meaning when we identify an old friend, we are really viewing appearance and illusory-like formations.

Even if these did reflect inherently existing and independent things, it wouldn't matter, they still appear/present themselves in the same ephemeral fashion.

The continuous impermanence of appearances, when considered objectively, is astounding.
Looking at anything that may be thought of as solid and unchanging to some, all one who is non-attached should see is an endlessly changing, endlessly wavering formation.

Not for half a second has an appearance ever remained unchanging. You can't even look at a concrete ground for a moment without that 'image' being constantly distorted, wavering, as if water were streaming past your vision, or as Buddha put it 'heat haze'.

The significance of this is that none of these formations are self, they are nothing to us, a passing show. Rising and falling. "We" remain unaffected.

[Cahoot]

One may intellectually know that phenomena does not last forever and still erroneously perceive phenomena as permanent. For example, one may suffer (a little or a lot) when the true nature of what is perceived to be a stimulating discussion forum is exposed to be impermanence by changing into what is perceived to be a discussion forum populated by morons. The judgmental “moron” designation is applied in relation to a personally flavored, and most likely imprecise, memory of what was; imprecise because when “what was” was happening and those memories were forming, phenomena was erroneously perceived as permanent, or “existing from its own side,” as it is sometimes described. Thus a snowball effect, error compounding error, resulting in a lifetime of delusion based on delusion, memories implanted by delusion and celebrated with maudlin nostalgia.

Drinking copious or other amounts of mercury certainly is a method of directly experiencing the initial gross stages of a particular form’s changing from perceived permanence to impermanence, as the constituent elements which comprise the compounded form begin to reorganize in accordance with the catalyst’s effects, although the gross alteration of form called dying need not be the sole direct apprehension of emptiness.

[Leyla Shen]

Lol Cahoot.

As for you, Diebert, I have no issue with you continuing your meaningful and enlightening conversation with Dumb-dumb.

I'm off to make a late dinner, which doesn't exist and I am only doing so because I am attached to eating.

Bon apetit!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One may intellectually know that phenomena does not last forever and still erroneously perceive phenomena as permanent... [something about this forum being what it is].... Thus a snowball effect, error compounding error, resulting in a lifetime of delusion based on delusion, memories implanted by delusion and celebrated with maudlin nostalgia.

That's not explaining anything! What have "personally flavored, and most likely imprecise, memories" to do with permanency and becoming? It sounds like "it's all relative" in other words. Being as it may, it doesn't reveal the source of dukkah.

Better not to continue with your example of drinking mercury and particular forms. There has to be a better way to conceive of any "direct apprehension of emptiness". Try again!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As for you, Diebert, I have no issue with you continuing your meaningful and enlightening conversation with Dumb-dumb.

That would be quite intrusive if you would! :-]

I'm off to make a late dinner, which doesn't exist and I am only doing so because I am attached to eating.

Be careful with those late dinners: can cause bad dreams! And who said your dinner or hunger didn't exist? The question is if you're suffering...

[Cahoot]

Try again!

So emotional.

How about being bumped off a formidable cliff by a Mercedes while dressed in a stylish haz mat suit, enroute to a delicious supper of scallops and rice interrupted by the impartial pushy power of gravity!

[Leyla Shen]

Be careful with those late dinners: can cause bad dreams! And who said your dinner or hunger didn't exist? The question is if you're suffering...

I expect you'd like that, wouldn't you?

And when you figure out what suffering is, then you will know...

:)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How about being bumped off a formidable cliff by a Mercedes while dressed in a stylish haz mat suit, enroute to a delicious supper of scallops and rice interrupted by the impartial pushy power of gravity!

No need to get passively aggressive in your choice of imagery. If you're not able to explain further then that's the final stop for you. Time to get off :]

[Cahoot]

More attention, less projection may, just may, result in fewer plaintive demands for dumbing down to an ossified capacity for comprehension that has grown inured to subtlies.

The sort of abject idiocy that follows from this deception is clearly discernible in people who on a daily basis: avoid walking in front of cars, off cliffs, wear protective clothing, avoid drinking copious amounts of mercury, eat and drink and then deny those things are there or ever happened.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

More attention, less projection.

Or just learn to write more clearly and make it understandable what it is you're addressing or whom.

Or anyone else tell me what you mean with:

• Drinking copious or other amounts of mercury certainly is a method of directly experiencing the initial gross stages of a particular form’s changing from perceived permanence to impermanence, as the constituent elements which comprise the compounded form begin to reorganize in accordance with the catalyst’s effects, although the gross alteration of form called dying need not be the sole direct apprehension of emptiness.

Drinking copious amounts of anything will not result in any "direct experiencing" of impermanence, in whatever stage. And you are even certain here! Dying is just more dukkha. Death, being empty or not, is just something the bystanders will have to deal with in their own way.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What exists are feelings and sensations. If one were not to eat or to consume mercury, feelings and sensations would arise. When death occurs, feelings and sensations would continue to arise. These appearances would be ongoing despite the dissolution of the supposed conduit of sense data, the body, which is a reference to nothing more than impermanent formations. All completely irrelevant to the fact that you couldn't provide a single reason as to why appearances are apparently representing independently existing objects or 'things'. (Leyla)

The only delusion I've ever encountered is a belief in false knowledge, false imaginations. The worst of which is the personal belief in one's own intellectual capability. Self-clinging. Some prime examples here being Leyla and Cahoot.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Settled meaning in reference to immersion, attachment. As opposed to no attachment, no immersion. -Not being settled,

For example to be settled in, or immersed, in the experience of bodily formation or any formation as self, seeing these as self.

Or even to be focused on any formation with desire for it, a person or an activity, would be an example of being settled, - "the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being"

The translation with unsettled was somewhat confusing to me because elsewhere in the text the word at times used to describe the reverse: suffering. Perhaps unbound would be the best?

That which isn't of the taint of being or sensual desire; the void, non-being, without attachment to any passing experience, not settling or being immersed in anything.

It's like something is "piggybacked" on top of feelings and reactions to feelings. This piggybacking needs better descriptions for the 21st century men!

Now I know there are some others here that assert 'meditation' is useless as a practice, and I would agree as a short term practice it isn't of much value except to widen one's awareness, but I know Buddha referred to a student in meditation as 'having found the light'.

Paying attention and focus are clearly important. Most mediation practices are the first steps to develop this. But when it's not there already in the developing years to some degree, meditation probably won't help to get the degree of attention needed to see what's being discussed here beyond having opinions on it or some soothing inklings about it.

I see the second 'possibility' [ that this is simply referring to life continued as it is yet without any clinging and so no suffering] as the truth though who knows, perhaps it is only an ongoing path until all desire for sensual existence has been completely snuffed out.

For now, in the context of this discussion, I'd like to get closer to describing "sensual existence" or as I introduced earlier "becoming". This is because people seem to have all kinds of connotations with the term which might confuse.

[Cahoot]

The only delusion I've ever encountered is a belief in false knowledge, false imaginations. The worst of which is the personal belief in one's own intellectual capability. Self-clinging. Some prime examples here being Leyla and Cahoot.

Lol. Which prompts the question, who was driving that Mercedes over the cliff?

[Leyla Shen]

What exists are feelings and sensations. If one were not to eat or to consume mercury, feelings and sensations would arise. When death occurs, feelings and sensations would continue to arise. These appearances would be ongoing despite the dissolution of the supposed conduit of sense data, the body, which is a reference to nothing more than impermanent formations. All completely irrelevant to the fact that you couldn't provide a single reason as to why appearances are apparently representing independently existing objects or 'things'. (Leyla)

The only delusion I've ever encountered is a belief in false knowledge, false imaginations. The worst of which is the personal belief in one's own intellectual capability. Self-clinging. Some prime examples here being Leyla and Cahoot.

Omfg, LOL!

[Leyla Shen]

The worst of which is the personal belief in one's own intellectual capability. Self-clinging. Some prime examples here being Leyla and Cahoot.

Yes, the world revolves around your ego!

Diebert is now off that list, and Cahoot is on.

Congratulations to the newcomers and goers!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Most mediation practices are the first steps to develop this. But when it's not there already in the developing years to some degree, meditation probably won't help to get the degree of attention needed to see what's being discussed here beyond having opinions on it or some soothing inklings about it.

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.

For now, in the context of this discussion, I'd like to get closer to describing "sensual existence" or as I introduced earlier "becoming". This is because people seem to have all kinds of connotations with the term which might confuse.

I'm not sure how we would describe it really, at least we both know it. Do you refer to egotism or self-perception when you say 'becoming'? The term sounds inclusive to me, being part of.
Also I wouldn't propose that sensory experience itself is something that would come to an end. 'Non-being' is just another experience after all. Yet there are varying degrees of attachment/immersion. Without attachment, or in meditation, there can be a sort of timeless unawareness, similar to what one might experience while asleep. When emerging from these reveries there is almost no memory of the experience as there was very little to experience at all. Looking into 'the dark' is an indescribable thing, the shifting and arising of feeling and imaginations passing by almost unseen.

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. 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.)


Cahoot you're still watching a lot of youtube videos, (and I don't drive). Leyla you're still unaware of the topic of every one of your posts.