Suffering Revisited

[Leyla Shen]

Well, obviously you’re just being ignorant.

A bit of an ego display.

Carry on.

No, what is obviously happening is that you still haven't answered my question, explaining the basis for your assertion that first cause is speculative inference arising in awareness based on "awareness of":

The Hooter: First cause is actually speculative inference based on memory and logic. Awareness is, all else is inference, thus awareness precedes first cause.

LS: And how does the memory, logic and resulting speculative inference "first cause" differ from the memory, logic and resulting speculative inference "awareness is"?

Awareness of what?

[Cahoot]

Awareness of, is awareness of what you think first cause is, if anything.

All that first cause is for you, right now, at this moment (and this moment is the referential coordinate of reality), all that first cause is or can ever be is speculative inference based on memory and logic.

And as you go through the day and periodically stop in the present to think about what first cause is, this is what you will find. Inference based on memory and logic.

That’s all first cause is to you, and all it can be.

And now, I'm off to the airport.

[Leyla Shen]

The Hoot: And as you go through the day and periodically stop in the present to think about what first cause is, this is what you will find. Inference based on memory and logic.

So, what is first cause, Cahoot?

[edited to add quote]

[Cahoot]

The Hoot: And as you go through the day and periodically stop in the present to think about what first cause is, this is what you will find. Inference based on memory and logic.

So, what is first cause, Cahoot?

[edited to add quote]

An inference based on memory and logic.

That’s all it is.

Even if the inference is based on faith, faith is based on memory and logic, though the memory may be selective, and the logic twisted.

Without awareness, you would not be aware of the inference. Thus, awareness precedes speculative inference.

Though not a poetic fantasy about the thoughts of cows, it is very simple, factual, and easy to understand.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cahoot,


Nagarjuna saw that self-nature, by necessity, must have two qualities:
it must be unchanging and it must be enduring.

The Buddha’s theory of dependent arising, however, is incompatible with such identity on
both accounts.
First, as explained above, self-nature must be unchanging and identical from one moment to the next.
However, it would then never be associated with change, and cause-and-effect would be meaningless.

Is splitting 'awareness' and 'awareness of' kosher,
they being dependent to each other?

It looks like you are saying awareness (unchanging/enduring) is the quality 'self-nature' (the grand poobah).

[Leyla Shen]

Cahoot:

An inference based on memory and logic.

Yes, I got that bit, thanks.

Even if the inference is based on faith, faith is based on memory and logic, though the memory may be selective, and the logic twisted.

I just don't understand what you mean here, I'm afraid. How is faith based on memory and logic?

Without awareness, you would not be aware of the inference. Thus, awareness precedes speculative inference.

Awareness of what? Without inference there can be no discernible awareness from which inference itself may be discerned. Thus, you have faith. Thus, inference and awareness and non-awareness of inference arise together.

Though not a poetic fantasy about the thoughts of cows, it is very simple, factual, and easy to understand.

Funny, I thought that was a fine example of your kind of “speculative inference first cause”. I’m pretty sure it was the first thing you’ve written that’s intentionally caused me a real laugh!
(:

[Cahoot]

Heya

Consider that:

Awareness, is non-duality.

Awareness of, is duality.

*

You can use depression as an analogy for awareness.

One can be depressed, which is not the same as being depressed about something.

(Remember KD, it’s an analogy, not an assertion that awareness causes depression.)

*

As the incomparable Longchenpa puts it …

“There is a naturally occurring timeless awareness that … is in essence naturally abiding and spontaneously present, and that does not take sense objects as its reference point.

“There is timeless awareness that is dynamic energy functioning as cognition, which arises in the immediacy of sense objects and takes those objects as its reference point.”

*

“How is faith based on memory and logic?”

In the sense that faith is learned. I think that unsullied human nature does have a devotional quality, though, such as the devotion of an infant to its Ma … though that could be just a natural attraction to breasts. ;)

[Cahoot]

About all this first cause brouhaha …

First cause can only exist in the moment of existence (reality) as a thought, which is inference, which is duality.

In the big picture duality is delusion.

To say that first cause, which in the moment of existence can only exist as a thought, is a delusion, is to say that you are a delusion.

And yet, you have a strong knowing that you are not a delusion.

So we can say, that which knows of the moment, of the thought, of the inference, of the duality precedes the above referenced first cause.
(Do you hear the pedantic hammer?)

[Dennis Mahar]

In the big picture duality is delusion.

The ultimate reality is devoid of all dualities and thus is wholly impervious to conceptual thinking?

It's wonderful to experience imperviousness.
Bliss.

To be sure, it's still a kind of relatedness, meaning it's on the menu.
Tasty.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot,

Leyla said: “How is faith based on memory and logic?”

You said: In the sense that faith is learned. I think that unsullied human nature does have a devotional quality, though, such as the devotion of an infant to its Ma … though that could be just a natural attraction to breasts. ;)

Everything in the duality of sense-object attachment, "awareness of (conditions)", is learned, including the thing called faith.

If by "unsullied" you mean "unconditioned", there is no such thing as unsullied human nature. What is a breast to an ignorant baby born of conditions into conditions (or to its lusting or nourishment-providing male/female adult equivalent) but a form purposed to keep the wheel of conditioned existence turning?

Having said this, learned things that are purposed to stop the ignorance of the turning wheel of conditioned existence, wisdom things such as awareness, consciousness, duality, nondual, attachment, detachment, faith, reason, etc. are the only things the awakening man has to bring about his complete awakening to his unconditioned, unborn, unlearned, un-thinged, non-human nature.

[Pam Seeback]

In the big picture duality is delusion.

The ultimate reality is devoid of all dualities and thus is wholly impervious to conceptual thinking?

It's wonderful to experience imperviousness.
Bliss.

To be sure, it's still a kind of relatedness, meaning it's on the menu.
Tasty.

Since tasty is the duality of not-tasty, tasty is on the ignorance menu.

There is a menu that because it is not tasty, it causes the end of tasty-not-tasty. It's called the wisdom menu.

Those who ignore the wisdom menu fear the end of tasty-not-tasty. And rightly so, for coming to the end of tasty-not-tasty is not tasty.

[Dennis Mahar]

Looks like a hug is off the menu today.
(:

You just said wisdom is a menu item in effect.
Tasty.
Tasty because it is still relatedness.
Of a flavour.
A flavour of experience.

The left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.

[Pam Seeback]

You misunderstood my menu references. I'll try again, no menu this time.

Wisdom is knowledge of the principle of causality that ends the experiential realm of the feeling, meaning-making self. Which means tasty wisdom is naught but ignorance dressed up as wisdom.

Like tastiness seeking and meaning seeking, hug seeking has to be sacrificed if (non feeling) wisdom is to be one's goal.

[Leyla Shen]

Hooter:

Awareness, is non-duality.

No, it isn’t, since its dual negative is non-awareness. Are you suggesting that non- or un-awareness is not equally as possible as awareness? That enlightenment simply entails proselytizing the positive aspects of duality?

What’s the difference between deluded awareness and enlightened awareness if not precisely that deluded awareness is the unawareness of truth?

[Dennis Mahar]

You misunderstood my menu references. I'll try again, no menu this time.

Wisdom is knowledge of the principle of causality that ends the experiential realm of the feeling, meaning-making self. Which means tasty wisdom is naught but ignorance dressed up as wisdom.

Like tastiness seeking and meaning seeking, hug seeking has to be sacrificed if (non feeling) wisdom is to be one's goal.

Do us a favour then and give up your meaningmaking ways.
geddit?

emptiness is not a thought,
its an absence of thoughts

when the sphere of thought has ceased, that which is to be designated also has ceased.
press your off button lass if you can.

the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on linguistics
Berkeley
Bradley
amongst many, these also suggest emptiness or nonduality.

what's on the menu?

[Dennis Mahar]

follow the bouncing ball.

all together now
a one, a two, a three, a four

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.
you provide the meaning.
Bliss.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You know, like trying to get rid of the clap by castration. But then with enough anesthesia: laughing gas!

[Dennis Mahar]

let it go mum,
it's fine.
OK?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

¡ʇɥƃıɹlɐ sɐƃ s,ʇı 'ou

[Leyla Shen]

LOL!

[Dennis Mahar]

Bliss!

[Pam Seeback]

God is love. You are the light. You are truth. Emptiness is bliss. 112 + 66 = 178

Don't ask me to show my work, just believe.

[Dennis Mahar]

The Universe is devoid of self-nature.
The enlightened one is devoid of self-nature.
Both are empty of their own essence.
The enlightened one becomes the Universe.

From this vantage point of 'ultimate reality' Life is seen as an ever-flowing, ever-changing process.

To have something at stake so personally,
to protect so fiercely,
It's only human nature after all.

[Dennis Mahar]

Don't ask me to show my work, just believe.

dependently arisen cannot have an independent identity.

can you notice that Pam?

if you can then:

what is dependently arisen lacks it's own essence.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis,

The Universe is devoid of self-nature.
The enlightened one is devoid of self-nature.

Both are empty of their own essence.
The enlightened one becomes the Universe.

From this vantage point of 'ultimate reality' Life is seen as an ever-flowing, ever-changing process.

First: Seeing [the vision] of infinite causality, being conscious of 'a' vantage point, the delusion of "becoming" still present.

Then: Abiding in infinite causality, unconscious of a vantage point, the delusion of "becoming" having been rooted out.

To have something at stake so personally,
to protect so fiercely,
It's only human nature after all.

Human nature is self-nature that fiercely clings to/protects something eternally "becoming." My question for you which is the same question I ask myself several times a day: are you a self-of-fierce clinging/protecting something "becoming" or to use your words, are you an enlightened one devoid of self-nature?