True stuff

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You were probably right Dan.. was just going to see how his ego might react being openly confronted with the honest truth at least one last time. Anyway not going to object to his ban, he had plenty of chances and I do also prefer enlightenment discussion on an enlightenment board.

Speaking of, it remains that we are fortunate to be exposed to and discuss liberation from constant delusion/clinging.
Free from having to care about stuff and attach ourselves to delusional obligations,etc, so forth.

Yet still, although I see the pointlessness of any attachment to transient experiences, communication about reality leads me to prefer being able to communicate it clearly and accurately, without any attachment to impermanent designations such as "full"/"empty", "beginning"/"end". This is so that when communicating we are able to get through to closed minds.

So in the name of being accurate and not spouting bullshit,
what views do you/anyone hold on the assertion of ideas/concepts regarding reality?
Since such assertions are fleeting and usually meaningless, I wonder how much can be said without crossing such boundaries.

I see that the negation of meaningless ideas usually leads one toward truth simply by denying untruth, negation which leaves behind truth, as opposed to asserting imaginations.
Such as: there is no "Free will". Reality is not "created" or "predetermined". Since these designations exist only in imagination.

Yet there are ultimate truths which are more than apparent and can be said without really having to say anything,
"All formations are transient". "There are appearances of sight/sound/thought"
If these are considered assertions, then it is some pretty damn obvious stuff.

In short, what knowledge can be asserted without crossing the boundary of conceptual bullshit?
(A boundary which almost every person in existence crosses daily, example: "chakras".)


It would be nice if there were a new language which somehow didn't involve egotism in it's fundamental grammatical structure.

[Tenver-]

I don't know.

One must realize one is part of this conception, in whichever world view one must fit oneself as included in the theory. Truth is a strange thing and very hard to define - but if we should ever reach close to it, it is unavoidable and necessary.

It is necessary, in my opinion, for the investigation of truth, and a burden which gives rise to a duty of genius, that one realizes that one is not excepted from the conditions and existence of other beings and cosmological arrangements. What I do has potentially real effects on other men and equally, I cannot be exempted from them as I cannot reject them from other conditions of the Universe. This puts a huge burden on any being as he is possibly the source of great terror - as well the actions of the past must be used fully now and one may cause unparalelled misery in the future. It is unavoidable, necessary - one either rejects his consciousness or live with implications of it.

This gives rise to one truth - one logic to which oneself is subjected equally as everything else contained in the theory.

This can also serve as a guiding star for what one can call reality and its necessary truth - pure existence, no opposites, clear and pure conditions. A negation of contradiction if f.ex. human confusion could be cleared away.

This is also what you could call the connection to the "divine" that is often spoken of by genius - it represents a higher existence than oneself is able to discover ever in the sea of mystery - the truth simply, whether it is you, me or any house that we live in. Simply existence to which oneself is subjugated to and which one cannot surrender to - it is impossible because the assumption of one's own existence necessitates the existence of other things.

Reality is that which is real in my opinion - and what is real is not up to you or me because we are part of the real and so cannot stand outside and decide which is real or not real - to us, all is real and nothing can extracted from the composite. From this necessary reality, in which we must decide between existence or non-existence, between consciousness or the lack of consciousness, assumption or the lack of assumption, theory or lack of theory, we cannot exclude ourselves as not fitting under the theory of our choice, as that would deny the existence of ourselves and others. Such we may only bow to the everknowing father, the raw existence and pure reality in which truth is created and which we must decide to be in if we are to count ourselves as real and from assumed existence make assumptions about other assumed existences.

Sorry if it doesn't make sense - it doesn't clearly to me either. Truth implies a non-negatable state - such a thing is only a characteristic of a reality - what is real. What is real is what exists. What exists cannot contradict itself - it would not be existence, but impossibility. If we are to make any ground towards an intellectual (in a broad term, using the mind and consciousness in all its scope) understanding of our conditions, then we must assume possibility and hopefully reduce it to inevitability.

I believe it is necessary that one understands this unbreakable connection between the arrangements of oneself and those of others (beings, non-living things and so on) in the investigation of truth. It also implies non-deniable duty and the possibility of being host of terrible misfortune among other beings.

It is only a concept in the mind of some beings (some men on Earth and possible beings elsewhere), but is nonetheless a master you cannot disregard because if you kill the master, you kill yourself and everything else. While that is possible, it leads to unconsciousness and the implications of that. You reject reality as you reject yourself and others. Also madness - genius.

[Dennis Mahar]

Enlightenment is an 'act' of consciousness.
Consciousness is the 'act' of conceptualising.
Buddha used 'fuel and fire' as the metaphor for it.

To remove the fuel is to extinguish the fire.
The fire isn't found to go to the north, south, east or west.
The fire simply isn't anymore.
The fuel is the 'act'.
What 'act' has to be given up for the fire to extinguish and Nirvana to open up.

The 'act' is usually 'me against you'.
the fear of domination by other.
a deeply conditioned, cultural-wide conceptual paradigm to live in.
Everybody 'gets it'.
You have to 'watch your ass' or look foolish.
You have to look good.

The initial breakthru from that debilitating condition is a massive 'hot potato' experientially.
The bodymind ripples with excitement and pleasure.
Too hot to handle.

As Plato's Cave allegory shows,
the difficulty in communicating the new-found paradigm is a task of extraordinary difficulty.,

The possibility of a new 'act' in relationship to others 'impresses upon' as a matter of significance.
An 'act' that doesn't produce overwhelm for any player given that play calls for an 'act'.


What does that 'act' look like conceptually as a thing in order for it to be experienced authentically.

[Russell Parr]

You can't not conceptualize details about reality because the process of conceptualization is part and parcel to consciousness. The act of thinking is the act of conceptualizing. This is just a fact of consciousness.

But that doesn't mean that we can't understand Reality. When we say that all forms are transient, or that concepts are appearances, we are stating facts about reality.

It would be nice if there were a new language which somehow didn't involve egotism in it's fundamental grammatical structure.

Impossible, language is necessarily dualistic in its nature. It is up to our understanding of reality to discover non-duality, thus the transcendance of egotism. This is why you hear sages repeatedly say that their words are but signposts to deeper profound understanding.

[Dan Rowden]

I've got some real estate/rental inspection crap to deal with at present so I'll add to this later:

Language is a problem because it comes with so much baggage; it does so because it's been built out of a conceptual framework that is bound up in delusional notions. Since language is, among other things, all about convention, there's automatically going to be problems. But they're not insurmountable because language is also very flexible. It all comes down to skill in means, which involves, firstly, having true clarity of insight into Reality. Without that communicating what you "know" is always going to be a difficult task, and probably one that should not be embarked upon.

Clarity and brevity; those are your key words for decent communication. Of course person to person dynamics are always better than the sort of discussion that happens on a board such as this because people are at different levels of understanding and possibly labouring under different key delusions.

Anyway, more later.

[Dennis Mahar]

Obviously we're opening up the possibility of 'strategic thinking' here as an 'act' of consciousness in order to generate the authentic experience.

postulating enlightenment as 'fire' because it is conditional has it depending on the 'fuel' feeding it.

just as the belief in inherent existence 'fuels the fire' of delusion which can also be viewed as 'strategic thinking' that generates a certain kind of experience or way or waywardness.
because the 'me against you' paradigm is found to be an all pervading conventional understanding of 'the way it is',
that conventional understanding is the necessary basis for refuting.

Strategic thinking is all about 'the fuel'.

[Dennis Mahar]

That's not to say that an exchange of conceptual paradigm from 'me against you' to 'me for you' is an enlightened strategy.
The enlightenment is the opening up of the domain where conceptual paradigms show up as functional artifacts to live a life from.

for instance,
guys say they love their wives.
the truth is they rarely, if ever, experience authentically an immersion in the condition 'love'.

they love their wives conceptually.
they live out of a paradigm of 'loving the wife' which amounts to pretense.
the experience of that is 'like walking around on eggshells' when the wife is in the room.
guys do finally admit to that distinction because it can't be hidden.

there is a condition called the 'labour of love', another paradigm to live out of, where the guy keeps bringing 'fuel' to hopefully ignite the concept of 'conjugal bliss' as a possibility for an authentic experience.

concept and experience.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Tenver I didn't mean to say we should negate all assertions such as that of our own existence, I agree we are "part of this conception" and are bound by our existence and its conditions as is, the same as all other beings. The non-negatable state and it's implications are exactly what truth is, that which lasts as true, and can only be found through not clinging to impermanent concepts, passing ideas, as opposed to that which becomes clear through 'awareness' and understanding, rather than existing only in thought. The nature of how we experience thought arise is one of these non-negatable aspects of "what is real".


Dennis the act of 'you against me' is something I was attempting to make clear just last night,
every time there was speaking, the defence/deflection/competition was abundantly clear,
every single sentence, the fuel to fire concept reminds me of a 'metaphor' that speaks of the ego
as a 'living being' which is trying to survive and hence feeds of any situation, effectively it 'hides'.
Although this is just an analogy it points out patterns which are very clear,
there are times in which a person literally runs and hides, even covering the face.
Deeply rooted defences which even when made clear and pointed out,
it may take a person hours or years to even recognize what they are doing, example pincho.

And yeah it would be impossible for someone to deny the distinction eggshells,
but in general when around people it's always eggshells no matter who they are,
unless of course they are non-attached also but then there's no real reason to stick around,
the strategic thinking and 'fuel' you are referring to may be something as simple as 'fueling enlightenment'
through reading Buddha or through being reminded how suffering arises through desire and why not clinging is the path.

At this point it is still an act, a paradigm in which one is 'kidding' themselves as they need to tell themselves,
similar to someone boasting about how they're not egotistical while firmly remaining the doer,

Eventually the fire becomes self-sustaining, the awareness remains without a need for fuel or thinking,
you're no longer the doer and actor, the effort and exertion is given up, almost all past ideas are abandoned,
the fire remains and you are now living in non-attachment 'seeing' that it's just experience and this lasts on its own.
That's what I would refer to as the end of suffering and clinging, is this also what you experience?

Russel the act of thinking is conceptualizing, but experiencing how thoughts arise isn't thinking, it's an awareness of the nature of thinking which leads to overcoming attachment to a lot of the bullshit. Such as recognizing it is uncontrolled/not free will/ not me.

Yeah Dan, clarity is great stuff =p More than anything clarity which reaches people on an undeniable level,
and can't be reflected or 'not seen', that its so obvious it must resonate as true, is where you want to be with communication.
The right order of words and you have the undeniable 'key' for enlightenment that can reach even closed minds.

[Dennis Mahar]

The chief cause of bondage isn't the function of conceptualising, it's the inclination to grasp onto the products of that function.

Keeping in mind at all times that Reality must be an undivided, seamless unity and couldn't be otherwise.

The 'fire' of inherent existence is fuelled conceptually.
The 'fire' of 'empty of inherent existence' is fuelled conceptually.

Both are conceptual paradigms to take on and to be used measure for measure.

a case of 'fighting fire with fire'.

That's the Inquiry.

When both fires are extinguished,
when every possibility for fuel is exhausted,
a radical shift in perceiving the world opens up.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The 'fire' of inherent existence is fuelled conceptually.
The 'fire' of 'empty of inherent existence' is fuelled conceptually.

Both are conceptual paradigms to take on and to be used measure for measure.

a case of 'fighting fire with fire'.

That's the Inquiry.

When both fires are extinguished,
when every possibility for fuel is exhausted,
a radical shift in perceiving the world opens up.

That leaves you with no ideas about what is,
at the end, not even this:

Reality must be an undivided, seamless unity

[Dennis Mahar]

In the absence of self-nature there is no other-nature replacing the absence of self-nature.
everything lacks self-nature.
what is refuted is self-nature.
that is emptiness.

to stop there would call forth cries of nihilism.
not so.
emptiness merely describes things as lacking their own essence.

dependent arising discloses that things really do exist after a fashion.

from that point of view everything is pertinent.

The Inquiry advances to the process by which things came to be.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

IMO, the inquiry is the issue that leads one astray.

The inquiry is a 'how' or a 'what'.
These things are barely even applicable conventionally.

It's based on a little sound someone makes, I may as well yawn then follow up with saying
that my yawn or slight sound 'haow' is relevant to the nature of the universe,
it doesn't mean anything, the inquiry is a clinging to uncontrolled transient imaginations.

Talking about sages, how many have backed not-knowing?
It's not only one that says this is the fundamental nature and that such further knowledge is a pretense.

"Though Hara, Hari
or the lotus-born Brahma *or the Buddha* himself
instruct you,
until you know nothing
you will never know 'Self'."

Existence did not come to be by any process, this experiences just is what is.

I wouldn't believe a single person in existence telling me they were anything but a 'child',
not if they had lived a thousand years, you know it's a pretense. Anyone reading knows it too.

You seem to be able to admit and see clearly the other not spoken of underlying truths, such as eggshells.
Gonna tell me you can't see this one too?

[Dennis Mahar]

The contents of your post is gibberish,
sorry champ.
but there is implicit a nod to causes/conditions so that's a decent start.


The context of your post assumes the position that you know.
try pulling the other leg.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I know exactly what your experience looks like, your trying to tell me a transient spontaneous appearance led you to believe in something that isnt that experience,a world existing only in fantasy, you've never provided one hint of a reason besides that the way "what's there is what's there" is "not so".

What's there is a reflection of what isn't there and is unknown, apparently.
Some irrational faith in "more", supposed to be talking about certainties, not unfounded guesses.

You pretend you aren't ignorant, you don't realize the extent of your lack of knowledge despite that you can see everyone else and their obvious pretenses.

[Dennis Mahar]

Your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing.

You promote a paradigm out of the conceptualising domain whilst arguing that paradigms out of the conceptual domain are fantasy.

The logical conclusion is that the paradigm you promote out of the conceptualising domain is a fantasy by your reasoning method.

no wonder you can't get out of your chair.
it's all a bit overwhelming for you.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What exactly do I promote? That there is experience? That isn't an assertion.

I'm not the one clinging to passing ideas and selfhood asserting magical unknown worlds.


Not to mention promoting attachment and 9-5 jobs, make sure you leave time for your responsibilities and AA work.

[Dennis Mahar]

you supply a ton of predicates concerning 'experience'.

by your own logic your authentic move would be to zip your mouth and keep your fingers off a keyboard.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

you supply a ton of predicates concerning 'experience'.

What predicates are those exactly? You'll find widespread agreement when I say I've been asserting nothing but "There are fleeting experiences of sights, feelings, thoughts, imaginings".

What's there is there, what else? knowing this is freedom from all other delusions.

by your own logic your authentic move would be to zip your mouth and keep your fingers off a keyboard.

Why should this be an issue? It's not like I've got anything better to do but sit around in a chair :p


When there is pain or illness do you still consider it as your own pain?
Do we not agree that these experiences are 'separate' from one's concern, passing by, nothing to you?

How does 'the senses perceive' (I'm assuming eyes, ears, bodily functions) fit in accord with a continuing experience of 'life and death'? Which is not being the body.

I'm sure we both know there are no hard feelings, but eventually one of us is wrong.
I would prefer to be shown why this wrong, rather than just told.

[Dennis Mahar]

When there is pain or illness do you still consider it as your own pain?

It is
It isn't
Both
Neither

welcome to the machine.

conceptual domain.

[Russell Parr]

John, it's curious how you seem to ask open and honest questions, only to shoot nearly everyone down that provides the answers to your questions, as if there's no need to actually know the answer. You filter everything others say through this belief that "everything is just experience" as if that is the conclusive answer to everything. You've hit this intellectual wall a while back and it seems you've only conditioned yourself more into "sticking to your guns" in response to any honest answer.

Anyway, I'd like to see Dan expand on his comment above.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Russell*, me and Dennis had been having an ongoing conversation about this same topic separate from here so most of what was said toward him may appear 'out of the blue'.

"A conclusive answer to everything"

What questions are there exactly? There was just one related to 'what is certainly true?' and there hasn't been much elaboration.

[Dennis Mahar]

What questions are there exactly? There was just one related to 'what is certainly true?' and there hasn't been much elaboration.

how do you reveal to a brick that's thick that its thick as a brick?

1. there are trees.
2. there are no trees.
3. there are trees.

you're stuck at 2.
sign up for the advanced course.

[jupiviv]

1. there are trees.
2. there are no trees.
3. there are trees.

That profound koan could also be written like this:

1. there are no trees.
2. there are trees.
3. there are no trees.

Or:

1. there are trees.
2. there are no trees.
3. there are no trees.

Or:

1. there are trees.
2. there are trees.
3. there are trees.

Hey Dennis, Seeker may be stuck at 2, but what you don't realise is that you're stuck at 3!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

See what I mean? Meaningless conceptual attachment.
Experience exists, 'tree' is a reference to passing experiences of sight, etc. (they exist the same as they always have)
You can talk all you like, but are incapable of pointing out what else there is save for what you know for certain.

[Dennis Mahar]

Hey Dennis, Seeker may be stuck at 2, but what you don't realise is that you're stuck at 3!

yeah, it looks like it.

generally, it's a recognition of 'not one' and 'not two' reflectively.
not two negates the position that divides the whole into parts. (duality).
not one is a suspension of discrimination experientially in meditation, forestalling getting stuck in non-duality obsession.

a foot in both camps.

neither 'not one' or 'not two'.

middle way.
pragmatic.

dead men have no use for money.