Dependent Origination

[Dennis Mahar]

Oh, Dennis. "People do things for reasons". Is this really the level your philosophising has reached?

Take a look at that Laird.
It has the character 'in order to for the sake of' all over it.

Just sayin'.
The Spirit in it is the usual Laird 'calling card':
'Shame on You'.

Geddit?

We've touched in deeper places Laird.

[guest_of_logic]

And your usual calling card is repetition, Mr Mahar. Repetitive motion that pleases you... what do you think, Leyla? Don't stress, Dennis, I'm just teasing.

[Dennis Mahar]

My days are spent in bliss and an excitement that 'goes thru the roof ' if there's someone else up for it.
because life is about 3 feet long.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

My days are spent in bliss and an excitement that 'goes thru the roof ' if there's someone else up for it.

Just chilling here, in ma void,
just chilling here in ma void!

because life is about 3 feet long.

Huh?

[Leyla Shen]

And your usual calling card is repetition, Mr Mahar. Repetitive motion that pleases you... what do you think, Leyla? Don't stress, Dennis, I'm just teasing.

(:

Yeah, like many others, Dennis loves playing with himself.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah, like many others, Dennis loves playing with himself

.

Third violin, second row, in front of cellos.

What have we got now the 'Laird and Leyla' tag team.
Could be fun.


Seeker,

because life is about 3 feet long. huh?

2 foot 11 inches is taken up gettin' the dough for food, shelter, clothing.
There's not much to know is there.
Realising all is empty, about an inch,
turns out to be 3 foot all up.
Job done.
Tight ship.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

2 foot 11 inches is taken up gettin' the dough for food, shelter, clothing.
There's not much to know is there.
Realising all is empty, about an inch,
turns out to be 3 foot all up.
Job done.
Tight ship.

K, for a moment there I thought it was a 'life is short'. Yeah hence the sillyness of asking the questions 'what do I want' or 'what will I do in life'...food, shelter,clothing.


People go to a whole lot of unnecessary effort for what they don't realize is nothing more than a scenery change.
My life's all wrong, got to change my scenery.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yeah, the place has been populated for quite some time apparently by a bunch of males who come here to jack off, and then complain how everybody here is just jacking off.

Any more insights into mother Earth? Of course there are two types of complaining: jacks or dry spell :)

[Beingof1]

Yeah, once you have seen one coffee cup, you have seen em all.

You've seen enough!

• A mere glance at a breeze blowing through the trees is enough to reveal everything there is to know about God. You don't have to go looking in exotic places beyond the universe. -- David Quinn, september 2013

My point was - the infinite is not the same - as you said - like every other thing.

I am beginning to see the worship of dogma is going to keep most in the prison of their mind and so, this is drawing to a close.

A very well known philosopher from your neck of the woods came up with it. His name was Leibniz.

He was German by the way. Geography and culture are not your strong points but still. Perhaps it's all the same to you :-)

:)

Your words, gestures and implications around the topic however are not beyond conceptualization, they are conceptualized when communicated. Like everything else.

I know that Diebert - that is what I have been saying as in over and over and over again. What in blazes are you disagreeing with?

I still disagree with: "None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is". Some conceptualization of the infinite is not equal to the infinite itself, like with all things. But that doesn't mean we cannot conceptualize properly to communicate, even when it comes to the infinite. Is this so hard to understand? Or are you withdrawing your claim?

If you really disagreed - for reals instead of pretending to disagree, you would have given one example AT THE BARE MINIMUM.

As it is and you do not realize it, its just defense of the ego and the dogma of a machine like universe caused by cause and effect.


I wish you well


Jupiviv,

You do not get it.


Laird,
#15 down the list we go, impressive.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My point was - the infinite is not the same - as you said - like every other thing.

It works the same the moment you start experiencing anything. Or conceptualizing. In that sense.

I am beginning to see the worship of dogma is going to keep most in the prison of their mind and so, this is drawing to a close.

By the way: are you still worshiping the bible as actual words of a personal god and documenting historical miraculous events?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Jupiviv,

You do not get it.

Heh heh, very true.

[jupiviv]

My point was - the infinite is not the same - as you said - like every other thing.

So your position is that all things point to the infinite, but the infinite itself is not the same as all things? You're damn right I don't get it. If I did then I'd seek medical attention tout de suite.

[Pam Seeback]

My point was - the infinite is not the same - as you said - like every other thing.

So your position is that all things point to the infinite, but the infinite itself is not the same as all things? You're damn right I don't get it. If I did then I'd seek medical attention tout de suite.

Infinite Mind is all things being caused now, non-attachment. When attachment to a thing is being caused, non-attachment is veiled. Which means Infinite Mind is the same as all of Its things, whether non-attachment or attachment is being caused. I am That I am. One (Infinite) Mind, two different experiences: one of suffering (attachment) one of no suffering (non-attachment).

In order for Infinite Mind to cause the veil of ignorance of attachment to be lifted so It may realize Its non-attached nature, It causes attachment to concepts that do not originate of the sense(earth)-principle, concepts such as spirit, emptiness, infinite, omnipresence, unborn, deathless, etc.

I am (you are) of Infinite Mind of all things being caused now: the question is, do I (you) want to cause the perpetuation of suffering or to cause the end of suffering's perpetuation?

[jupiviv]

Infinite Mind is all things being caused now, non-attachment.

Just clarify this for me if you will - by "all things" being caused, do you mean the infinite itself, or each part of the infinite(finite things)? If you mean the latter then I agree with you.

When attachment to a thing is being caused, non-attachment is veiled.

I don't quite know what you mean by "non-attachment", but if it is a finite thing like a rational mind, then it isn't "veiled" by attachment being caused.

One (Infinite) Mind, two different experiences: one of suffering (attachment) one of no suffering (non-attachment).

If the mind is said to be infinite then it can't be conscious and thus can't experience anything, since there is nothing apart from it that it can experience.

I am (you are) of Infinite Mind of all things being caused now: the question is, do I (you) want to cause the perpetuation of suffering or to cause the end of suffering's perpetuation?

If we are all just one infinite mind and there are just two experiences that we can have, for all eternity, why does it even matter what we cause?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

And yes, the dissolution of the brain is also the dissolution of the mind on the planet I inhabit. Even if it isn't, the mind/consciousness is impermanent, being a finite thing, and that is also what the Buddha taught.

Infinite Mind

Moving gets it, directly contrary to what you've written. The dissolution of the brain is not the dissolution of the mind, that is what it means to get it. For example the quote, 'ceases to engage in life and death', or 'deathless', how do you some that up?

To you and Laird it actually means, "I'm going to die and my mind will die(come to dissolution) with the body".

[jupiviv]

To you and Laird it actually means, "I'm going to die and my mind will die(come to dissolution) with the body".

Not just to me and Laird, but also to a sizeable portion of the human race, including all the wise men of the past and at least two of the three founders of this forum. You're living in a non-dual fantasy world, and until you get out of it you're no better than one of those New Age gurus.

"Form, Ânanda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ânanda, that cessation is spoken of." - Samyuktagama(Samyutta nikaya.)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That's not true at all, I just quoted a founder of the forum saying differently, not to mention none of them would agree with your idiotic notion of an end (or beginning) to existence. Buddha and other sages who first brought up "deathless" and "eternal life" also directly disagreed.

[jupiviv]

You've got serious mental blocks, Seeker. I know that both Kevin Solway and David Quinn don't believe in an infinite/eternal consciousness, and also that they don't interpret the terms "birth and death" and "unborn" as used in Buddhism literally. Kevin doesn't post here, but you can ask David about his position right now if you want.

The eternal life spoken of by the Buddha, Jesus and others don't refer to any special, finite thing like the experience of non-duality, or a dimension or realm of existence like heaven, or an infinite mind/consciousness(which is a contradictio in adjecto as I have shown). It is the folly of virtually all priests, monks, theologians and philosophers through the ages that has transformed the profound teachings of these men into deluded nonsense.

Also, movingalways is not a founder of this forum.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Funny that we were just speaking of his definition on another thread, "One is free of all attachment to form (and, by extension, to formlessness). And because of this, one ceases to engage in life and death". Which clearly shows you have incorrectly interpreted their writings. How can one not engage in life and death while at the same time you say death is the end?

Furthermore, how can eternal life and deathless refer to limited life and death in a matter of years?

You think you have something to lose, "en ego-entity and what it possesses", imagining that this can come to an end along with your existence. On the other hand, you imagine people speaking of eternal life to mean that there is an ego-entity which continues forever.

It is neither of these, recognizing that nothing, including the body, belongs to you, there is then nothing to lose or to continue on. Aka, not being part of life or death.

[David Quinn]

Funny that we were just speaking of his definition on another thread, "One is free of all attachment to form (and, by extension, to formlessness). And because of this, one ceases to engage in life and death". Which clearly shows you have incorrectly interpreted their writings. How can one not engage in life and death while at the same time you say death is the end?

Furthermore, how can eternal life and deathless refer to limited life and death in a matter of years?

You think you have something to lose, "en ego-entity and what it possesses", imagining that this can come to an end along with your existence. On the other hand, you imagine people speaking of eternal life to mean that there is an ego-entity which continues forever.

It is neither of these, recognizing that nothing, including the body, belongs to you, there is then nothing to lose or to continue on. Aka, not being part of life or death.

I take it, then, that the prospect of consciousness ending with the physical death of the body doesn't bother you?

Furthermore, how can eternal life and deathless refer to limited life and death in a matter of years?

You seemed to hint at the answer yourself at the end of your post. Eternal life or immortality doesn't mean living forever. It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

[jupiviv]

Funny that we were just speaking of his definition on another thread, "One is free of all attachment to form (and, by extension, to formlessness). And because of this, one ceases to engage in life and death". Which clearly shows you have incorrectly interpreted their writings. How can one not engage in life and death while at the same time you say death is the end?

Death is the end of that which dies. I never said that death is the end of everything. The statement "ceasing to engage in birth and death" also refers to a death, i.e, of ignorance, ego, delusion etc.

You think you have something to lose, "en ego-entity and what it possesses", imagining that this can come to an end along with your existence. On the other hand, you imagine people speaking of eternal life to mean that there is an ego-entity which continues forever.

Nothing, whether an ego-entity or a non-attached mind, continues forever. On the other hand, it is not my imagination that my mind(whether deluded or enlightened) will die with my body.

It is neither of these, recognizing that nothing, including the body, belongs to you, there is then nothing to lose or to continue on. Aka, not being part of life or death.

If there is no self to begin with then what do we want with recognising that it doesn't belong to us, has nothing to lose and isn't part of life or death? You're imagining a demon(self or ego or whatever else) so you can coil up in fear of its presence, muster up the courage to fight and destroy it and then be escorted by angels to heaven. Birth and death is going on right now in your very own brain, probably multiple times in a single day, and yet you seek inspiration and answers in some dusty old scriptures and the snow-filled well of a foolish sage.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

There you go Jupiviv, what did you say about Quinn agreeing with your idiotic notion of death as an end?

It should be clear enough to you now, that which was 'never born' cannot die. Again "deathless". The mind does not die with the body, it is not in the body.

[David Quinn]

It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

There you go Jupiviv, what did you say about Quinn agreeing with your idiotic notion of death as an end?

It should be clear enough to you now, that which was 'never born' cannot die. Again "deathless". The mind does not die with the body, it is not in the body.

It doesn't die, it simply reverts to the mode of unconsciousness.

If a person wants to understand what he will experience after death, all he has to do is look at what he experienced before his birth. The infinite past and the infinite future are identical in this regard.

[jupiviv]

There you go Jupiviv, what did you say about Quinn agreeing with your idiotic notion of death as an end?

Death is the end of that which dies, and the beginning/continuation of that which doesn't. If you think this notion is idiotic then you should come up with an argument demonstrating it to be false. Quoting David doesn't count.

It should be clear enough to you now, that which was 'never born' cannot die.

Only the All is unborn. Finite things are born of and killed by each other. However, in a certain context they are unborn because they are parts of the All. You don't understand that context, so you're taking David's meaning out of context. In another, equally valid and essentially identical context, things are most definitely born, and most definitely die. You are affirming the former context while denying the the latter, and thus straying from the middle path.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Only the All is unborn. Finite things are born of and killed by each other. However, in a certain context they are unborn because they are parts of the All. You don't understand that context, so you're taking David's meaning out of context. In another, equally valid and essentially identical context, things are most definitely born, and most definitely die. You are affirming the former context while denying the the latter, and thus straying from the middle path.

When something is described as unborn it's because it's not even a part of some "All". It's because it has no actual reality beyond any provisional, constantly changing and deeply relative notion. Then we proceed to attach emotions, belief of convictions to things because of some set of reasoning, repetitions or scientific arguments. But that remains an artificial and illusionary context, like the self and not any philosophical one.