Where Buddhism/existentialism overlap

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The way you write, Dennis, is fine, the only thing you don't recognize, or recognize and ignore, is that you avoid inquiry as if you don't have an opinion or view, when clearly you do.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Wild animals like Dennis ... roaming the perimeter, Dionysian disgust.

One could wish some more wildness, some more ruthlessness! As if I haven't been addressing your tameness.

Listen to John the Seeker, you are avoiding "position" (and denying opposition) while you're taking in one nevertheless. It's a conflict you are maintaining out of sight but not out of mind. Or listen to Nietzsche, who when he was a bit older and wiser repeatedly questioned his youthful disgust, his earlier simplistic invocation of the Dionysian and Apollonian tragedies:

• And psychologically speaking, what then is the meaning of that madness out of which tragic as well as comic art grew, the Dionysian madness? What? Is madness perhaps not necessarily the symptom of degradation, collapse, cultural decadence? --source

[Pye]

[ I'm crying foul, Diebert. Nietzsche carried the pain of his break with Wagner to the very ends of his concretized sickness, madness and death. It was a 'sickness' to him, this original rent-from he suffered from, an original fusion (w/Wagner) that required repeated repudiations-of-it, most especially of the work (Birth of . . .) that stood representative of star friendship's height. I think this is something that you know, too, weighty enough not to cancel-out the sight-value(s) still extant in BOT. Nietzsche himself was sick most of the rest of his life with justifying this original tearing-asunder, his endless grieving over his lost-mergence with Wagner. ]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[ I'm crying foul, Diebert. Nietzsche carried the pain of his break with Wagner to the very ends of his concretized sickness, madness and death. It was a 'sickness' to him, this original rent-from he suffered from, an original fusion (w/Wagner) that required repeated repudiations-of-it, most especially of the work (Birth of . . .) that stood representative of star friendship's height. I think this is something that you know, too, weighty enough not to cancel-out the sight-value(s) still extant in BOT. Nietzsche himself was sick most of the rest of his life with justifying this original tearing-asunder, his endless grieving over his lost-mergence with Wagner. ]

So then you are agreeing with me? It's unclear what the foul is about. Anyway I'm not sure what any reference to Nietzsche's sickness and madness would have to do with it. Perhaps you want to imply some Dionysian cause of his tragic end? It appears that Nietzsche didn't solve the dilemma he started to formulate. All I commented on was Dennis his reuse of the Apollonian and Dionysian framework in his analysis, his position.

[Pye]

. . . just saying that Nietzsche's later axe-grinding repudiations of this entire dynamic isn't as good an address to the dynamic itself that it could be, and for the aforementioned reasons Nietzsche-scholaring would be suspect of such as an 'argument' here as well. And yeah, nietzsche-wagner themselves as this rent. sure. why not.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

. . . just saying that Nietzsche's later axe-grinding repudiations of this entire dynamic isn't as good an address to the dynamic itself that it could be, and for the aforementioned reasons Nietzsche-scholaring would be suspect of such as an 'argument' here as well. And yeah, nietzsche-wagner themselves as this rent. sure. why not.

Shaky grounds there, Pye! Still a welcome attempt. However one could wonder why then not also criticizing the highly suspect Dionysius/Apollo dynamic that was being applied post after post by Dennis? It would be a bit like swallowing the camel and sifting out gnats. You imply I was Nietzsche-scholaring and therefore fair game and he was just oracling and therefore nothing to see and moving on? See the problem now perhaps?

Surprisingly enough I've always seen my position here more infused by "Dionysian" elements than Apollonian. I mean we are clear that notions of healing, poetry and oracling are very much Apollonian? My role is sometimes described as mortician here, stirring the pot, challenging and subverting perceived positions and attempting to demonstrate the foolishness of what is called "rationality" or even "truth" by all too many. Call me a "secretive ironist"!

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,

However one could wonder why then not also criticizing the highly suspect Dionysius/Apollo dynamic

Surprisingly enough I've always seen my position here more infused by "Dionysian" elements than Apollonian

Make up your mind.
A penchant for fuckin'around.

feeling/thinking
mood/understanding

An individual mind 'organised' in the face of chaos.
An ordering.
Self as Citadel.

In not interested in World Mandala according to Diebert.

'DiebertWorld' and disgust.
Some sort of protection racket goin' down.
Who's afraid of the big,bad wolf.

sketch it out.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However one could wonder why then not also criticizing the highly suspect Dionysius/Apollo dynamic

Surprisingly enough I've always seen my position here more infused by "Dionysian" elements than Apollonian

Make up your mind. A penchant for fuckin' around. Feeling/thinking - mood/understanding

Your beloved feely touchy Dionysus or at least the Apollonian version you have applied, is generally understood as way more dark and chaotic: a predator, not interested in just little pleasures, innocent rhyming and a bit of tipsy drunkenness. It's about being fucked up. It's about pulling out a blade and ripping the soft underbelly open, to kill the bull. Deep, darker impulses of what's perhaps the older, "reptilian" mind. Pure energy. Bordering on the insane. Madness! And ruling over it. But it's not clear you even know what you're talking about when invoking these terms, Dennis. I'll leave you to your rather Apollonian dreams of cheerful moods put in some unstructured prose. It's your winning formula after all!

[Dennis Mahar]

Cowardly retreat.
Gutless wonder.

Citadel stormed.

to kill the bull

make that bullshit.

Don't fuckin' lie to me.
Whenever you engage someone you come from 'here's another scalp for the belt'.
How you 'listen'.

[jupiviv]

Don't fuckin' lie to me.
Whenever you engage someone you come from 'here's another scalp for the belt'.
How you 'listen'.

Fire at a sea park.
Tsunami on the western ghats.
You want him to be a playa but he ain't playin by the no-rules.
Diebertworld is saber-rattling.
Dennisvoid at DEFCON 1.

The mandala is mandaling,
Diebert is Dionysianing.
But Dennis knows miffed when he sees it,
And that's why he doesn't have to be reasoning,
When he could just be Dennising.

[Dennis Mahar]

Experiencing me experiencing me the love of my life complete and whole.

Experiencing me 'in Diebert's shoes' experiencing me.

I'd have to be busted.
I'd have to be crazy.
I'd have to be restless.
I'd have to be stoopid.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whenever you engage someone you come from 'here's another scalp for the belt'.

All philosophy is like that. Taking no prisoners. Killing the bull (shit). My own scalp has always been the first, old unshaved hippie!

[Dennis Mahar]

Love ya' Dad.
You rock.

[Dennis Mahar]

Seeker,

The way you write, Dennis, is fine, the only thing you don't recognize, or recognize and ignore, is that you avoid inquiry as if you don't have an opinion or view, when clearly you do.

The Inquiry looks for inherent existence.
unfound,
continues.

What you are really saying is 'position'.
Dennis' position.

In order to think Contextually the little treasures of language are called forth in their being.
Prepositions.
Pre-positioning.
Disposedness.
A position is a 'cling' effectively.

What is actually happening is:
A 'to cling'.

in order to
for the sake of
as a means to
for what end
leading into
about which
coming from
in respect to
of which

and so on.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A position is a 'cling' effectively.

This is not true and possibly a misunderstanding of a term like "position". Positions arise out of situations, just like persona arise out larger events. "You" cannot jump out of "it": you keep being responsible.

It's projecting "ultimate reality" onto any particular appearance or position, like Quinn phrases it, which leads to clinging and ignorance. Or even projecting this on non-appearance and non-positions, like vibhava-taṇhā: the craving not to be in Buddhism. It could be wise to consider the issue.

[Dennis Mahar]

What you just said Dad.

all over it,

in order to for the sake of

your automatic way of being is oppose, oppose, oppose
taking scalps,
agenda,
I don't wanna say covert hostility 'cos it's not that.
You're reliable for oppose.
So what?

Boo!(:

You are organised around oppose, oppose, oppose.

it's clear cut that that organisation has an:

in order to for the sake of

[SeekerOfWisdom]

A position is a 'cling' effectively.

A metaphysical assertion is a cling, or laying down an ultimatum based on opinion or 3 seconds of thinking.

Yet you do have a position, the truth is a position, Buddha came from a position. The position was that people discriminate and cling to the multiplicities of appearances as if these distinctions and things are self-existing rather than conceived of the mind. Which is perpetuated by names and words, people acting as if these arise from the subject itself rather than being references.

The position is also that all that is being referred to aren't two but one.
The one being a reference to
"As they do not clearly grasp the fact that the world is no more than mind itself"

'mind' being only a pointer to the infinite.

All coming from a position, indicating toward the no-position('always/already') of what is.

So there's no need to avoid inquiry when you have a position, it seems to be a denial that there is a viewpoint that you are speaking from, for example 'reflection/representation'.

[Dennis Mahar]

listen up.

The buddha was an existential thinker.
He took god/brahmin off the table.
He suggested a possibility for human being existentially.

To live out of a Context.

You can't have love 'cos it breaks down.
You can't do love 'cos it breaks down.

love can be generated, as a distinction, in all your conversations that gets 'direct experience' of love.
Like learning to ride a bicycle.

it's always/already the infinite. (that's the small stuff)
how long are you gonna sweat the small stuff?

You need a shower.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

your automatic way of being is oppose, oppose, oppose

That's because you position, position, position, and need to be reminded you are.

It's called discussion. Try it sometimes, become a member, participate, don't hide in non-existing non-positions ! :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

What?
Kama Sutra?
Ain't up for discussion thanks :)

[Dennis Mahar]

Let's take a look at responsibility.
Categorical thinking?

Contextual thinking has it:
response-ability

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I wonder if you are being serious?

Work on love as a direct experience in all conversations, is what you suggest?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Contextual thinking has it: response-ability

Yeah I thought of spelling it as "response-ability" like I did a few times on the forum the last years. But perhaps it becomes stale like all gimmicks. Depends on the context, just like anything else, just like any position.

Let's take a look at clinging. Holding, grasping or possessing something is not clinging. It becomes clinging when it's not released when it's time to release. Take football, you get passed the ball and you pass it back or run with it if you can, depending on position, talent and opponent. On the right moment you let it go again. Some people at times sound like that supporter on the side-line, buzzed on beer, yelling: both teams suck, yeah, I don't care! But he forgets he has his position carved out there and is still clinging his can. And he will be opposed when he runs on the field without the ball but still holding that can.

Clinging really is forgetting where you are, what you are (not) and what you're doing. It's dropping the ball when it shouldn't be dropped and holding it when it should be dropped. Simple?

[Dennis Mahar]

exactly.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

exactly.

Assuming that was in reply to my question,

that's a pretty stoopid suggestion that seems to have no relevance to 'the business of the forum'.

Dennis speaks his first commandment, love thy neighbour, that will rid you of delusion.