What's the purpose of discussing enlightenment/reality?

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: As you should realize: crippling and bliss both produce each other: under every moment of your bliss, even when presented as "emptiness", lies a deep hatred and rejection. One is fueled by and responding to the other: a coping, an ancient formula, like opium! It's fundamental and human, no shame in discovering it and it might be an essential step for anyone moving forward with deeper understanding.

There exists within all emotions whether they are described as human or divine, their mirrored unseen twin. Dependent arising, can't be escaped. The necessity of contrast, can't be escaped. Logic reveals this, but more importantly meditation reveals this. And, where emotion exists, forms cannot be envisioned in their 'proper' causal order. An ordered life requires an unmoving heart.

Having said this, I go back once more to the idea of balance between stillness of mind for the sake of rational living and meditation on divine or virtuous emotions such as love, compassion and joy for the sake of feeling one's existence. Divine emotions which as already been established contain their necessary contrasts of hate and rejection, contrasts whose existence are not denied by wise consciousness but that for virtue's sake, are consciously left unmanifested.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: Dasein is Tool-Being.
We are Tools.

Generators.
Bliss is generated.
Suffering is generated.

Out of Stillness all pleasures and sorrows cascade.
What's on the menu for imputing mind?

As I understand the concept of "generator" it engenders conscious action. If you agree, then are you saying that you consciously generate suffering as well as bliss?

What of the truth of dependent arising? Does this not mean that bliss and suffering are in relation to one another, contrasted to one another, that they are not separate self-generated things? As I understand my being, I am not a generator, rather, I am that which wills which co-dependent twin will be manifested for the sake of...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What crap. That's your projection.

"Something wrong with you" = "prejudicial". Mental justifier! Protection racket! (your kind words for others)

You'll get it when you get it.

Dennis the solution provider ("clean fuel")? Dennis the justifier of the Infinite?

There's nothing to "get", just a word revealing attitude. But there might be a few things you could let go.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An ordered life requires an unmoving heart.

This is just an open question but why would an "ordered" life be a requirement? Life itself manifests as order because I haven't seen any signs of life yet in true chaos. The heart, the secret, the gravitational force: definitely something beyond us as we are just surface dwellers at best.

Divine emotions which as already been established contain their necessary contrasts of hate and rejection

It's like the most ugly needs the most beautiful as cover, as servant "licking its boots". Likewise all secrets divine appear to be surrounded by the most terrible things. Does it attract them or is it trying to hide? Isn't purity necessarily inclined to avoid discovery? How could anything pure remain pure when observation alone already would defile it by division, projection and playing out some ancient drama over its remains?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
An ordered life requires an unmoving heart.

Diebert: This is just an open question but why would an "ordered" life be a requirement? Life itself manifests as order because I haven't seen any signs of life yet in true chaos. The heart, the secret, the gravitational force: definitely something beyond us as we are just surface dwellers at best.

I am not sure what you are referring to when you speak of the gravitational heart being beyond us. If by gravitational heart you are referring to the pull of desire, it is my experience that one can descend from the surface to know the taste of its truth. To know lust, to know greed, to know hate, etc. is to know why it is a better thing, a virtuous thing, a healthier thing to transcend desire than to remain somersaulting in its whirlwind. The irony is that while the gravity heart is felt at its most intense point, one only intuits that the darkness of this experience serves a higher purpose. One is not yet conscious of the gem of wisdom hidden in its suffering-seed. Twice while in desire's most intense pull I dialed the number of my family doctor who was also a practicing therapist, both times I hung up before the call went through. I know now that Intuition was telling me that my doctor would not understand the 'big picture' of my suffering and might hinder my progress toward wisdom rather than helping to move it along.

Quote:
Divine emotions which as already been established contain their necessary contrasts of hate and rejection

It's like the most ugly needs the most beautiful as cover, as servant "licking its boots". Likewise all secrets divine appear to be surrounded by the most terrible things.

Indeed.

Does it attract them or is it trying to hide?

What does the song say? Can't have one without the other.

Isn't purity necessarily inclined to avoid discovery?

If one thinks that purity doesn't include discovery of contrast in its full spectrum of reflection, then yes, desire for purity will be inclined to avoid discovery.

How could anything pure remain pure when observation alone already would defile it by division, projection and playing out some ancient drama over its remains?

Purity is a product of understanding that contrast is a necessity for survival of consciousness and that ignorance of this truth leads to division, projection and playing out some ancient drama over its remains.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am not sure what you are referring to when you speak of the gravitational heart being beyond us.

With heart I meant essential truth. With gravitation I meant movement and causality. And our own appearances and disappearances, our own hearts, being superficial imagery for the obsessive. For life to appear as movement, as falling and rising, the absolute, as constant lies at its core. One can identify with change, life or death, or one can rest in peace, the eternal. Most people struggle to be somewhere in between those and that's called suffering. Suffering is part of the spiritual life only, of conscious life, because of these two belongings; in movement and in rest.

How could anything pure remain pure when observation alone already would defile it by division, projection and playing out some ancient drama over its remains?

Purity is a product of understanding that contrast is a necessity for survival of consciousness and that ignorance of this truth leads to division, projection and playing out some ancient drama over its remains.

Since all knowing and abiding is movement and purity has no lack or any richness to flow to suck lack, actual purity cannot be known or held. But surely it's much sought after, as in the love for truth, desire for God or any derivative, any sign of life really.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: With heart I meant essential truth. With gravitation I meant movement and causality. And our own appearances and disappearances, our own hearts, being superficial imagery for the obsessive. For life to appear as movement, as falling and rising, the absolute, as constant lies at its core. One can identify with change, life or death, or one can rest in peace, the eternal. Most people struggle to be somewhere in between those and that's called suffering. Suffering is part of the spiritual life only, of conscious life, because of these two belongings; in movement and in rest.

For me, rest and movement of spirit can be discovered beyond identity with rest and movement. Logic (being at rest) is impersonal as is joy or love (being in movement, as Dennis says, "welling up") impersonal. Where wisdom comes in is in the knowing of when it is time for rest and when it is time for joy. To misapply wisdom of rest and movement causes suffering.

[Dennis Mahar]

If you can't get past ugly/beautiful as none other than prejudicial meaningmaking.
get therapy.
Reactive
Mind on fire

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: With heart I meant essential truth. With gravitation I meant movement and causality. And our own appearances and disappearances, our own hearts, being superficial imagery for the obsessive. For life to appear as movement, as falling and rising, the absolute, as constant lies at its core. One can identify with change, life or death, or one can rest in peace, the eternal. Most people struggle to be somewhere in between those and that's called suffering. Suffering is part of the spiritual life only, of conscious life, because of these two belongings; in movement and in rest.

For me, rest and movement of spirit can be discovered beyond identity with rest and movement. Logic (being at rest) is impersonal as is joy or love (being in movement, as Dennis says, "welling up") impersonal. Where wisdom comes in is in the knowing of when it is time for rest and when it is time for joy. To misapply wisdom of rest and movement causes suffering.

But all discovery contains subject and object: identification. Underneath this lies movement still, think of a ship sailing to a distant shore. Joy, sadness, love and hate, desire and satisfaction are all personal, Pam, giving rise to person-in-action. It's the movement around these poles which causes the energy. But logic is a special case, like the spear is a special stick: it takes work carving out.

Suffering occurs when awareness of movement occurs on a background of the eternal. This is how birth and death appear to our consciousness as even knowledge of things being temporary and ending is only possible because of knowing the infinite, of realizing absolutes and then we have to name it, to contain it. And it's not like we don't know it already: the ignorance happens when trying to deny.

[Dennis Mahar]

This and such.
so what.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: But all discovery contains subject and object: identification. Underneath this lies movement still, think of a ship sailing to a distant shore. Joy, sadness, love and hate, desire and satisfaction are all personal, Pam, giving rise to person-in-action.

It is my experience that desire-born emotions such as sadness and hate and satisfaction give rise to person-in-action, suffering, but that desire-free emotions such as joy and love do not. When love and joy are present, I do not experience the suffering of the

the movement around these poles which causes the energy.

But logic is a special case, like the spear is a special stick: it takes work carving out.

I understand logic's value to carve out desire, but when desire is not present, logic is of no value.

Suffering occurs when awareness of movement occurs on a background of the eternal.

Suffering does indeed occur when awareness of movement occurs on the background of the eternal, but suffering does not occur if one's awareness is not of moving toward or away from or around but rather, one of being moved as if on the spot. They are entirely different experiences of 'move.'

This is how birth and death appear to our consciousness as even knowledge of things being temporary and ending is only possible because of knowing the infinite, of realizing absolutes and then we have to name it, to contain it. And it's not like we don't know it already: the ignorance happens when trying to deny.

When we stop moving toward or away from things and instead are being moved because of our things, the coming and going of our things is accepted as being who or what we are.

An understanding that is awakening within me and I would appreciate your feedback is the understanding that it is possible to have consciousness of contrast without it entering the realm of oppositional or polar consciousness. The closest scripture I think of that refers to this understanding is that of saying #22 of the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Perhaps this relates to your statement about not denying our having to name things/contain things.

[Dennis Mahar]

As I understand the concept of "generator" it engenders conscious action. If you agree, then are you saying that you consciously generate suffering as well as bliss?

What of the truth of dependent arising? Does this not mean that bliss and suffering are in relation to one another, contrasted to one another, that they are not separate self-generated things? As I understand my being, I am not a generator, rather, I am that which wills which co-dependent twin will be manifested for the sake of.

Dependent arising means 'this ceases, that ceases, this arises, that arises'.

generator.

what is silver?
properties of silver are 'floatable' and 'shining'.
In order to be floatable, silver must have water.
In order to be shining silver must have light.

they are possibilities for silver generated by conditions.

So too Dasein. (being here)

The respective Dasein's have massive firewall protection built into each other and toward each other because of conditioning.
Fortress Islands.
Armed Citadels.
Hid.

Conditional suffering.

a possibility for breakthru' because conditional.

Bliss is generated.

machinery activated.
being-in-action.
this or that.
such as it is.
nothin to get.
in order to for the sake of
always/already.

Being-with.

Being (timeless) is a priori to facticity (time).
Being is forgotten, facticity is taken up.

[Pam Seeback]

Dependent arising means 'this ceases, that ceases, this arises, that arises'.

generator.

what is silver?
properties of silver are 'floatable' and 'shining'.
In order to be floatable, silver must have water.
In order to be shining silver must have light.

they are possibilities for silver generated by conditions.

So too Dasein. (being here)

The respective Dasein's have massive firewall protection built into each other and toward each other because of conditioning.
Fortress Islands.
Armed Citadels.
Hid.

Conditional suffering.

a possibility for breakthru' because conditional.

How about: wisdom of an thing or event being generated of causes and conditions is breakthrough of affect giving rise to (being moved into)

Bliss is generated.

or joy is generated or peace is generated or love is generated, each of these things themselves being dependent on an uncountable multiplicity of causes and conditions in order to be. Where the idea of absolute comes in is in the moment being names its affect of wisdom, it knows/declares I am That (bliss, joy, love). Not sure if my interpretation of being absolute or absolute being fits with your idea of

Being-with.

To me, the concept of 'with' implies a separation, a bridge, albeit a subtle one, between subject-object. In other words, when I am writing because of joy, I am not with joy, I am (the action) of joy.

[Dennis Mahar]

To me, the concept of 'with' implies a separation, a bridge, albeit a subtle one, between subject-object. In other words, when I am writing because of joy, I am not with joy, I am (the action) of joy.

So, that's a mine.
Being-with-others.
Being here in the midst of
Here-structured
Housed.
Guest in Hotel.
How many others got involved in the shoes and clothes you are wearing, food you are eating, computer you are using.


mooded in such and such a way via recognition.

You won't get the 'who' from the 'I'.

I pulled into a carpark a couple of months back and saw a radiant woman.
You know me, I couldn't pass.
I said: You're radiant, how come?
Her radiant hubby came along.
A wonderful world opened up.
same shit different day.

here they are:
http://www.happyentertainment.co.nz/ent ... t-jazz-duo

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: But all discovery contains subject and object: identification. Underneath this lies movement still, think of a ship sailing to a distant shore. Joy, sadness, love and hate, desire and satisfaction are all personal, Pam, giving rise to person-in-action.

It is my experience that desire-born emotions such as sadness and hate and satisfaction give rise to person-in-action, suffering, but that desire-free emotions such as joy and love do not. When love and joy are present, I do not experience the suffering of the [the movement around these poles]

Person-in-action is not the suffering you seek to address here, like the tree-in-action in your garden isn't the suffering you need to address.

Suffering arises together with consciousness of causality and emptiness. Suffering is part of the spiritual awakening itself and only in its most primitive form like the mourning over a deceased loved one, instilling consciousness of causality, change and emptiness in an unprepared soul. The spiritual person suffers a thousand times more when he realizes his whole world is like the dead loved one and even his joy and love are not different than worms gnawing dead flesh. Suffering goes beyond the emotions of suffering. Fundamentally suffering is ignorance, that is: what follows a certain realization of things, of truths, of deaths and of change. One could say it's the spiritual quest and inquiry itself which causes suffering. This is why there's a whole industry catering for the weary souls looking to suspend its animation, to dry freeze it into peace by clever preprocessing.

I understand logic's value to carve out desire, but when desire is not present, logic is of no value.

But what would still have value without any desire? The process of life is about putting value somewhere (a hole or a hill) and then moving towards it (falling or climbing).

Suffering does indeed occur when awareness of movement occurs on the background of the eternal, but suffering does not occur if one's awareness is not of moving toward or away from or around but rather, one of being moved as if on the spot. They are entirely different experiences of 'move.'

But even that must be illusionary and will succumb to suffering when we find one's awareness is not "still" or on any spot. Suffering arises when things are let go but we don't know that when it's still held close.

An understanding that is awakening within me and I would appreciate your feedback is the understanding that it is possible to have consciousness of contrast without it entering the realm of oppositional or polar consciousness.

You wish that possibility because perhaps you refuse the suffering that comes with the ever shifting polarities giving rise to consciousness? It looks like you want to keep something.

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

And when you say 'Mountain, move!', it will move (as Jesus adds in #106 after saying the same). I looks really like another rendering of Samsara = Nirvana, where being cast outside the "kingdom" means the suffering of separating images of illusion (female) and images of truth or ideal (male). The suffering which is part and parcel of the spiritual people but hardly known by the mass man, who might live by "everything is relative" or not think or wonders much at all, even while still driven by various illusions and ideals ("reality"). Consciousness is about being that lost sheep while the herd does not suffer that way as no journey has started and life is lived unconsciously as a result: forgiven (free from suffering) simply because they blissfully do not know what they're doing. Ignorance hasn't even really started yet and relative happiness can remain the case: innocent really and amoral even when blood is spilled.

The quote describes by the way the image of the suffering Christ: thorn picks (eyes) on the forehead, the overlaying hands and feet, some depict them that way in the shroud or nailed at the wood with the original cross being a simple stake. It's meant as visual in place of a visual, a story of suffering inside another story of suffering.

[Dennis Mahar]

What are you warning against Diebert?

what happened?
It sounds dire and dreadful like somebody got shipwrecked.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Suffering arises together with consciousness of causality and emptiness. Suffering is part of the spiritual awakening itself and only in its most primitive form like the mourning over a deceased loved one, instilling consciousness of causality, change and emptiness in an unprepared soul. The spiritual person suffers a thousand times more when he realizes his whole world is like the dead loved one and even his joy and love are not different than worms gnawing dead flesh.

I appreciate the time you took to answer me so thoughtfully and I do relate to the suffering you describe above.

Suffering goes beyond the emotions of suffering.

Suffering is an understanding goes beyond the emotions of suffering and includes the emotions of suffering, yes.

Fundamentally suffering is ignorance, that is: what follows a certain realization of things, of truths, of deaths and of change. One could say it's the spiritual quest and inquiry itself which causes suffering. This is why there's a whole industry catering for the weary souls looking to suspend its animation, to dry freeze it into peace by clever preprocessing.

I do agree that there is a whole industry catering to weary souls not yet ready to enter into their weariness, I have a entire bookshelf dedicated to such soul candy, but do you agree with the Buddha that if one is willing to enter into their weariness, to put the soul candy aside, that their weariness will come to an end?

My experience of suffering and its end in a nutshell, using the concepts of love and reason. Please feel free to interject with your own experience:

I suffered my consciousness of the emptiness and impermanence of love and reasoning, especially of love. And of this suffering came the consciousness that just because love is empty and impermanent does not mean that I cannot know love, that I cannot will love to be. As a matter of fact, what I learned is that it is just because love is empty and impermanent that I am able to will love and to know love. The same principle applies to the discovery of the emptiness and impermanence of reason. At any given moment, I can cause myself to reason, I can will myself into reasoning, I can experience reason.

But what would still have value without any desire? The process of life is about putting value somewhere (a hole or a hill) and then moving towards it (falling or climbing). 

I see what you're saying. To value love is to desire to be love or in love. To value reasoning is to desire to be reasoning or in reasoning. So its not desire that is the problem, its whether or not one experiences the desire as an internal mechanism of Self expression (not suffering) or one experiences desire as a mechanism of desiring this or that thing to be objective and permanent (suffering).

movingalways: Suffering does indeed occur when awareness of movement occurs on the background of the eternal, but suffering does not occur if one's awareness is not of moving toward or away from or around but rather, one of being moved as if on the spot. They are entirely different experiences of 'move.'

Dibert: But even that must be illusionary and will succumb to suffering when we find one's awareness is not "still" or on any spot. Suffering arises when things are let go but we don't know that when it's still held close.

But I am saying that one is standing on the spot (of will) whilst being aware of being moved of emotion. I will to feel love (emotion) as I will to reason (feel nothing). It goes back to my earlier premise that we are not always thinking of what needs to be done and that in these times when reasoning is not needed that one is free to rest in no-thing or to play in the energy of the things of joy or love. I cannot imagine a life without consciousness of energy, what would be the point?

movingalways: Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Diebert: And when you say 'Mountain, move!', it will move (as Jesus adds in #106 after saying the same). I looks really like another rendering of Samsara = Nirvana, where being cast outside the "kingdom" means the suffering of separating images of illusion (female) and images of truth or ideal (male).
I would put it this way: to be cast out of the kingdom is to suffer the separation of one's will or spirit (male) from one's concepts or things or soul (female).

The suffering which is part and parcel of the spiritual people but hardly known by the mass man, who might live by "everything is relative" or not think or wonders much at all, even while still driven by various illusions and ideals ("reality").

Consciousness is about being that lost sheep while the herd does not suffer that way as no journey has started and life is lived unconsciously as a result: forgiven (free from suffering) simply because they blissfully do not know what they're doing. Ignorance hasn't even really started yet and relative happiness can remain the case: innocent really and amoral even when blood is spilled.

I agree. I would also add that most are not yet awakened of the intuition that one has an absolute nature because one is not yet ready to endure the suffering that is caused to find one's absolute will or “I.”

The quote describes by the way the image of the suffering Christ: thorn picks (eyes) on the forehead, the overlaying hands and feet, some depict them that way in the shroud or nailed at the wood with the original cross being a simple stake. It's meant as visual in place of a visual, a story of suffering inside another story of suffering.

But the Christ does cry out “it is finished” does he not, and in the crying out, go to the Father, the Absolute? The end of the suffering of belief that "everything is relative" including one's will to be.

[Dennis Mahar]

I've gone thru' 3 boxes of tissues.
What a Story.

Old script worked up a treat.
she's the perp.
he's the rescuer.

Golden Globe Award.

Causing suffering is the suffering.
The Buddha taught emptiness/bliss.
True nature is felt.
Get a feel of it.

[Pam Seeback]

The story of perp and rescuer is your story, and considering the number of times you bring it up, I can only conclude that it is your favourite. I mirror back to you what you so often mirror to others: who hurt you so bad that you have to have 3 boxes of Kleenex ever by your side?

Your story of bliss is a bare-boned one. Me? I like a little flesh on my bones.

[Dennis Mahar]

No excuses.
No justifiers.
Causing suffering is the suffering.
The Buddha taught emptiness/bliss.
True nature is felt.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What are you warning against Diebert? What happened? It sounds dire and dreadful like somebody got shipwrecked.

It does sound that way if suffering is not understood. Probably it sounds dreadful for anyone refusing to "get" emptiness. Bliss is your hide-out remember? It's formed as reaction to your suffering, not as solution. To maintain it you need to repeat it here. To destroy it you also need to repeat it here.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

do you agree with the Buddha that if one is willing to enter into their weariness, to put the soul candy aside, that their weariness will come to an end?

It's unclear what "entering into their own weariness" means. It's primal to understand the nature of suffering without desiring to undo it. But people do flock to the teaching with exactly that desire. This is why one could say: Buddha, or philosophy as a whole teaches and as such provides us suffering but also its cessation. One could just as well say that life teaches this.

At any given moment, I can cause myself to reason, I can will myself into reasoning, I can experience reason.

But is it proper to introduce oneself as prime cause and will?

But I am saying that one is standing on the spot (of will) whilst being aware of being moved of emotion. I will to feel love (emotion) as I will to reason (feel nothing). It goes back to my earlier premise that we are not always thinking of what needs to be done and that in these times when reasoning is not needed that one is free to rest in no-thing or to play in the energy of the things of joy or love. I cannot imagine a life without consciousness of energy, what would be the point?

There's too much here that I cannot relate to in terms of will, feeling, emotion and reason. They might mean different things to you. But at least I could say that reasoning does not come and go. Your life reasons and orders even when you're not there to will things. To define reasoning as a state of non-feeling seems like a serious misinterpretation of that process. Feelings work very clever once you see the trails of bread crumbs. The question is if you desire to identify with their "will". To be human being is to have several wills, especially as social being where we have to respond to various often conflicting or contradicting signals.

I would also add that most are not yet awakened of the intuition that one has an absolute nature because one is not yet ready to endure the suffering that is caused to find one's absolute will or “I.”

The quote describes by the way the image of the suffering Christ: thorn picks (eyes) on the forehead, the overlaying hands and feet, some depict them that way in the shroud or nailed at the wood with the original cross being a simple stake. It's meant as visual in place of a visual, a story of suffering inside another story of suffering.

But the Christ does cry out “it is finished” does he not, and in the crying out, go to the Father, the Absolute? The end of the suffering of belief that "everything is relative" including one's will to be.

It's best to limit these kind of discussions to the most common narratives. Otherwise we have to start talking about the descend to "hell" for three days.... it never ends!

[Dennis Mahar]

There is no duality.
bliss is not caused by suffering.
Mistaken identities.promulgated in language.
linguistics.
'Chinese whispers'
Passed around.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is no duality, bliss is not caused by suffering.

You're still using "bliss" as moral end, or as some natural state of being. And then it remains the natural counterpart of suffering.

Bliss as such is the natural response to denial and repression. That's why all main religions have their versions of it. And all offspring: any "spiritual" unbeliever.

[Dennis Mahar]

Not that

free from prejudice, like that
accurate seeing

Suffering is me first,
Scaredy cat.

true nature felt
don't condemn what you don't know.

bliss: a contraction of blessed relief
contentment