Where Buddhism/existentialism overlap

[Dennis Mahar]

exactly referred to Diebert.

have you got any other survival option apart from 'miffed' seeker?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Hence 'assuming'.

Few people here are using survival options Dennis, there's no need to, no threat, you just imagine these things.

On the other hand, there are positions, yours is

U mad?

[Dennis Mahar]

just acknowledge it seeker.

you got a great line going with 'miffed' then we can move on.

[Beingof1]

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!

Diebert is telling you the truth here Dennis. He does not like having his scalp taken as he puts up quite a fight but when he sees truth for himself, my experience is the D-man will relent.

He grumbles a lot after tho.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'm not angry or agitated, if that's what miffed means.

I'm really telling you, and you don't seem to get it, you repeat that same line for everybody,
Your position is that everyone is always/already miffed,malice,cutting scalps,etc, when talking to you.

Can you acknowledge that?

[Dennis Mahar]

Whatever you're saying,
it is,

in order to for the sake of

can we get flat on that?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

For the sake of what, what is it you think I'm/we are trying to achieve at all times?

I get that sometimes people speak purely out of deflection/attack, yet a perception of some made up reason for why people type is turning away from discussion of reality/enlightenment toward
"you're doing this"
"you're doing this"
"you're doing this"
for the sake of?

Turning toward reality/enlightenment, what do you think is the other hand, the 'big stuff'? I hope the answer isn't love.

[Dennis Mahar]

seeker,

Whatever you're saying,
it is,

in order to for the sake of

can we get flat on that?

[Leyla Shen]

Out-tech, out-KSW, Dennis.

A professional auditor never asks the PC, "Can we get flat on that"!

If it's a training exercise in TR 0 Bullbait you're attempting, where are the student hats?

Get yourself to Qual immediately.

[Dennis Mahar]

Not the Ethics Officer again.
shit.
another Comm Ev.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He does not like having his scalp taken as he puts up quite a fight but when he sees truth for himself, my experience is the D-man will relent.

And me thinking it was obvious I meant me taking my own scalp first. Anyway, you have not seen me relenting. I'm not even sure anyone ever relented on this forum. It's a staking out and at best a skewed interpretation, a projection of our own ideals and answers on what we are reading. That's a rather cynical stand perhaps but I'm not saying there are no positive sides to reading and writing here.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Whatever you're saying,
it is,

in order to for the sake of

No because that implies anticipation/expectation or a goal.

Your implying an independently existing person with thought-out and controlled intention trying to.

When really what's appearing is a reply that exists without reason except for that circumstances lead to writing (such as a previous post).

There's no reason, no anticipation or expectation, no person, no plans, so how could there be in order to for the sake of? It's not like 'in order to' is an insult being wiggled out of, its nothing, and if it is applicable, then it's applicable to all writing or acting.


This is so far from discussion of anything that it's worthless, 'not the business of the forum', so again, what's this 'big stuff'? If before the infinite is the already known 'small stuff'.

[Dennis Mahar]

OK?
there's an organising of subject, verb, predicate, adjective, adverb etc.
OK?
whether written or spoken, it's despatched or broadcast.
OK?
any of it and all of it, anytime, anywhere.
OK?

in order to for the sake of?

Good morning...
in order to for the sake of
Pass the potatoes please
in order to for the sake of

any and all communication goes in that can and is a wrap.
in order to for the sake of
OK?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Any and all communication goes in that can and is a wrap. In order to for the sake of. OK?

The overflowing cup flows over for no sake at all. Perhaps it loves itself for its own sake, which isn't an actual sake: a bubbling over. Directionless, deep down. Self-forsaking.

[Dennis Mahar]

Wow.
Self as Self.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The mind Dennis. Not any self or love or self-love. Of course it were just my own posts I was talking about. Perhaps we all imagine some reasons to write or respond? Or imagined praise, status, negativity, positivity and so on. There's no real effect in my view. Wise people will read wisely whatever they lay eyes upon, especially their own words. Ignorant people will affirm their errors with the same texts or events, especially their own words. As I said, I don't expect or wish anything. If there's any effect at all, it could just as well be the next thing instead, this bird, that cloud, some moment. So what I say is that we're all flowing over from what we're full of. Even when saying good morning, sincerely. Functional requests are another story altogether, a limited syntax ruled by strict protocols and immediate circumstance.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

and if it is applicable, then it's applicable to all writing or acting.

In such general terms, OK.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dad,

The mind Dennis

feeling/ thinking
mood/understanding

Could I argue this Self I experience is in such and such a way 'organised' sufficiently wise thus enabling myself to experience myself as the 'source of my experience in circumstances'.

'dangerous waters, consummate skill' as a possibility.
Gratitude.

As such,
out of that Context,
Bodhichitta.