Qualities of a Spiritually Evolved Human

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: It then seems more important to make peace with them, knowing them [heap of feeling, parenthesis mine], than trying to obliterate the lot of them.

I'm not sure one ever knows their heap of feeling, but I do see now that to make peace with their existence is the only sane choice. As an extension of my response to Leyla above, one needs a non-heap "name-and-form sanity house" of "happiness" or "bliss" or "sadness" or "grumpiness", etc. In other words, feeling-name is bogus, but its all we got. :-)

[Leyla Shen]

He was conditioned to believe this as is every thinking being conditioned to believe in something. "Virtue" was his mental-spiritual framing of the void, his "sanity" house, if you will. No different than the "sanity house" of doctrines of Mind such as dependent origination.

Do you mean:

Until you realise the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order. However, if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.

Then you will come to think of things in a wide sense and, taking the void as the Way, you will see the Way as void.

?

Do you think when he said this he did not realise what it meant?

[Kunga]

Chapter Sixteen [The Tao Te Ching ]

Human must achieve the ultimate void and maintain calmness with sincerity in order to observe
the growth and flourish of all beings.
It is in this way that one can understand the law of nature.
All things and beings will eventually return to the original source.
This is called “peace.”
“Peace” means returning to one’s original nature.
This original nature is the eternal law. To know the nature’s law is to be enlightened.
He who is ignorant of the nature’s law shall act recklessly, and thus will invite misfortune.
To know the constant law of nature is to be generous.
Being generous, one is impartial.
Being impartial, one is the sovereign.
Sovereign is the nature itself.
Nature is Tao. Tao is everlasting.
When one’s physical body dies away, Tao still long endures.

[Kunga]

(another translation:)




Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 16

Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind rest at peace.
The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return.
They grow and flourish and then return to the source.
Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The way of nature is unchanging.
Knowing constancy is insight.
Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
Being openhearted, you will act royally.
Being royal, you will attain the divine.
Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao.
Being at one with the Tao is eternal.
And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.

[Pam Seeback]

He was conditioned to believe this as is every thinking being conditioned to believe in something. "Virtue" was his mental-spiritual framing of the void, his "sanity" house, if you will. No different than the "sanity house" of doctrines of Mind such as dependent origination.

Do you mean:

Until you realise the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order. However, if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.

Then you will come to think of things in a wide sense and, taking the void as the Way, you will see the Way as void.

?

Do you think when he said this he did not realise what it meant?

Since all is causal "flux" given-a-name, how could he realize what it meant? Did you realize what you meant by asking me if I thought he knew what it meant? Who can know the truth of the name "virtue", never mind its many subset names.

[Leyla Shen]

One who knows what an absolute is.

For instance, your absolute claim that “absolutes are for suckers” defeats itself since, for it to be true, it must be untrue.

[Leyla Shen]

PS: For the record, it does not follow from what I just said that Dennis isn't a sucker, by the way. (:

[Pam Seeback]

One who knows what an absolute is.

For instance, your absolute claim that “absolutes are for suckers” defeats itself since, for it to be true, it must be untrue.

Trapped by my own words. Lots of fun. (:

[Dennis Mahar]

The distinction in the abiding experience of emptiness discloses that no phenomena exists absolutely.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It then seems more important to make peace with them, knowing them [heap of feeling, parenthesis mine], than trying to obliterate the lot of them.

I'm not sure one ever knows their heap of feeling, but I do see now that to make peace with their existence is the only sane choice.

Surely you can recognize a feeling? Knowing the difference between a feeling occurring and not occurring? It's not perfect knowledge if that's what you mean. There are times to object and question what is felt and there are times to make peace. That's as far as a general statement like this could go :)

[Dennis Mahar]

It's not unheard of, as in Plato's cave allegory that a person attached organisationally. Albeit a cloister. Monastery. Academy 'gets it' and comes to the task lit up newly, revivified. Refreshed in spirit.
only to have their wings clipped by entrenched cultures where the public mood is anxious. Conservative. Acting in bad faith
a crafted response has to be called forth around that.
a subtle mind approach of calm bliss.

Calm abiding

enlightenment is for the most part entirely unwelcome wherever it shows up.
Its right there in that compassion for all and self is appropriate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But you are, and that very (mis)understanding is a demonstration of your craving.

I have come to see that there are no examples on this board of a craving-free existence; existence is synonymous with craving.

Not just across the board, across the globe! Of course it depends on how you are defining craving and the related suffering that is supposed to "cease".

The clinging of a leaf to a tree is not the type of attachment one desires to cut. When it comes to permanency, it's about the factor which fuels and serves the inherent sense of continuation, the self-centering of experiences and thought, which causes all the ignorance and type superficial of clinging that is often addressed. Clinging and letting go of objects or goals are only incidental examples, sometimes it illustrates the fundamental falsehood, sometimes not.

This struck a deep chord with me and caused me to see that we are all protecting our "sanity houses", be they of faith, virtue, logic, compassion, bliss, happiness, hatred, whatever. What choice do we have? Perhaps consciousness that becomes mentally ill has lost the ability to build a sanity house of name-and-form.

The wise have no home but poke fun at all those houses on the sandy lands. Naturally in all ones words and actions a self-form arises that should not become the next refuge.

Perhaps true peace comes when we accept our sanity house for what it is: a necessary, blessed illusion.

Samsara is nirvana: "The glory of the world is like a flower: it stands in full bloom in the morning and fades in the heat of the day."

[Leyla Shen]

It's not. Unheard of as in Plato's cave allegory. That a person attached organisationally albeit. A cloister monastery academy.
'gets it' and comes.
To the task lit up newly, revivified refreshed in
spirit only to have their wings. Clipped by entrenched cultures where the public mood is anxious. Conservative acting in bad. Faith,
a crafted response has to be called forth around that a subtle mind approach.
of calm bliss.

Calm abiding enlightenment is for the most

part entirely unwelcome
wherever it shows up its right there in that compassion.
for all and self is appropriate.

[Pam Seeback]

It then seems more important to make peace with them, knowing them [heap of feeling, parenthesis mine], than trying to obliterate the lot of them.

I'm not sure one ever knows their heap of feeling, but I do see now that to make peace with their existence is the only sane choice.

Surely you can recognize a feeling? Knowing the difference between a feeling occurring and not occurring? It's not perfect knowledge if that's what you mean. There are times to object and question what is felt and there are times to make peace. That's as far as a general statement like this could go :)

For me, which means there are those like me, sorting through the difference between feelings that come with having a body and emotions that come with having an "I" is the primary wisdom challenge. You hit the nail on the head when you said that sometimes in my writing I am writing more from my personal sense of suffering than that of a universal sense of suffering (I'm paraphrasing). When I was a teenager, I remember thinking that feeling and emotions were not the same thing - it's taken me almost fifty years to think that thought through.

[Dennis Mahar]

(;

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You hit the nail on the head when you said that sometimes in my writing I am writing more from my personal sense of suffering than that of a universal sense of suffering (I'm paraphrasing).

Thanks Pam, good to know I wasn't just imagining. Of course it's mainly because I know it too well, that " primary wisdom challenge" which could also be seen as a shift from the personal to the universal without losing touch.

[Pam Seeback]

Thanks Diebert, I am curious as to when others had the conscious thought "personhood is a figment of the imagination." For me, that conscious thought came like a thunder bolt in '05 or '06 after a sleepless night of thinking about subject-object as a unified 'thing.' I literally sat upright, with my first thought being, oh my God, this changes everything! I joined Genius around that time after being a casual lurker since '02, with the body of my writings obviously revealing my struggle to, as you say, shift from the personal to the universal without losing touch. Yegads, so much junk to get out of the way! Still cleaning house, but as time passes, I can feel the broom getting lighter. :-)

[Leyla Shen]

:P

[Dennis Mahar]

The terms personal and universal are conventional designations.
name only.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I am curious as to when others had the conscious thought "personhood is a figment of the imagination." For me, that conscious thought came like a thunder bolt in '05 or '06 after a sleepless night of thinking about subject-object as a unified 'thing.' I literally sat upright, with my first thought being, oh my God, this changes everything!

And even that conscious thought is a figment of the imagination. Understanding requires a lack of belief. Without any belief there is nothing to know other than the direct experience of reality. Which is a wavering impermanent experience.

One could say that experience is neither bad or good, or that it is often an experience full of wonder or bliss, really you could say anything about it, it remains that existence is beginning-less and is subject to agitation, desire and suffering.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Without any belief there is nothing to know other than the direct experience of reality. Which is a wavering impermanent experience.

No that's an example of a figment of imagination, buddy. Your directness is another dream, just one you prefer and value. Cui bono?

[Dennis Mahar]

Nothing can be found that exists in its own nature independent of conceptual designation.

[Cahoot]

All suffering is inference.

[Pam Seeback]

One could say that experience is neither bad or good, or that it is often an experience full of wonder or bliss, really you could say anything about it, it remains that existence is beginning-less and is subject to agitation, desire and suffering.

Seeker, I am coming to understand that existence does not have to be subject to agitation, desire and suffering. That these things are caused by the delusion of a superimposed self with the natural effect of this delusion being ignorance or bias toward form. That it is bias and not the appearance of form itself that is the cause of suffering. Is it not the ignorance of bias that causes anger, hatred and greed, which in seed form is desire and agitation? Do you see that without form bias desire and agitation have no chance to take root?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Existence, form and "superimposed self" become so incredibly wedged together, the larger issue of suffering, that at first it might seem beyond any ability to make proper distinctions here.