What's the purpose of discussing enlightenment/reality?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The largest distinction I see on this forum is the reason behind "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment".

What's this about? Recognizing what already is, overcoming past delusions, understanding the true-nature, living in bliss, ending suffering?
It doesn't make much sense as to how these distinctions are so over-looked when we have people lurking with extremely differing views.

Continuing from there, for me philosophy should be and doesn't exist without certainty at the beginning, the middle, the end. Otherwise we may as well be 14 year olds discussing opinions which change every 10 seconds.

Most attempts at building from certainty are founded on assumptions from the beginning.

Such as the "it is assumed the electron exists from its own side" from Dennis. Which is an example of a major assumption which ruins the possibility of accurate progression in understanding.

Pye wrote:
logic being a tool of reason, but reason being far more light-footed, less cumbersome, and possessed of greater reach. Reason, in my estimation, is the process that can speak farther than logic qua logic can; reason can confront those portions of logic that get themselves too tightly wound; can break through those airless spaces.


I don't think there should be any "airless spaces", that's where assumptions are made.

Speaking from uncertainty:
The world is something which exists independently of conception or experience.
I'm the body. The end of this body is the end of my existence.
Consciousness is brought about by a collection of observable matter which is the fundamental cause of our existence.
Jesus is Lord. etc.

Certainty:
There is experience/existence.
There is the arising of 'mental formations' or just, there is experience/existence.

Meaning is not set in stone(variable): which means one thing can be experienced as either good/bad or pleasurable/horrible and it varies/depends.
(Even if one is only temporarily designating a feeling/experience as painful/horrible, or is delusional in doing so, the delusion or meaning-designation of painful/horrible has arisen)

A fundamental certainty:
"Suffering" has arisen, and as it stands, I cannot say it will not arise again.

This is the certainty that makes discussions of enlightenment relevant to me. There is a purpose here in relation to suffering and the state of existence, while others might have the view 'for the sake of what?' or "always/already bliss". Which has only been outlined as a demonstration of the widely varying views as to the 'reasons behind' or the value of all this.

[Dennis Mahar]

What's the point of rhetorical questions?

[Dennis Mahar]

You have no readership ability seeker.
a failure in comprehension.
when he said 'life is suffering'.
He didn't mean life per se
he meant the life in the lives of the beings he saw around him was suffering needlessly.
he then said there are causes for that and a curriculum of education for eradication

the buddha taught bliss/emptiness.

[Cahoot]

A fundamental certainty:
"Suffering" has arisen, and as it stands, I cannot say it will not arise again.

If facing truth does not cause suffering, then there will be no problems.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah,
The seeker formula imputes 'inherent existence of suffering' in relation to life.
As in a fixed condition.
Comprehension failure.

it's funny how 'life is suffering' can be construed several different ways.
Pye's caution re linguistics is pertinent.
Being fluid/multi lingual as a listening concerning spoken or written word.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Suffering" has arisen, and as it stands, I cannot say it will not arise again.

How is your interpretation of something else related to above? For any of your comments to be note-worthy you would actually have to explain how you could be certain suffering will never again arise for you.

Mind trying that? Or just going to keep repeating 'bliss'?

[Dennis Mahar]

There is no place where bliss/emptiness is absent.
it's on that basis enlightened being is imputed.

how many times have conditions ripened and a breakthru' to bliss experienced and after a while you abandoned it.
Noticed it dropping off and take leave.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

how many times have conditions ripened and a breakthru' to bliss experienced and after a while you abandoned it.
Noticed it dropping off and take leave.

I know what you're talking about but I think you're making my point for me. There is nothing eternal about such insights.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Insights" is the wrong word, there is nothing eternal about momentary fantasies.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker,

I know what you're talking about but I think you're making my point for me. There is nothing eternal about such insights.

"Insights" is the wrong word, there is nothing eternal about momentary fantasies.

Your assumption that there is nothing eternal about one's consciousness being awakened to the truth that they are the individual consciousness of Everything and that such consciousness causes love for Everything thereby ending one's suffering of not knowing who they are beyond their ego identity and their suffering of falling in and out of love is preventing you from allowing for the contrasting reality, which is that God consciousness is an eternal insight.

If the possibility of the wisdom and love of God consciousness was a momentary fantasy, would it be on your mind as much as it is? Does its persistence to exist not indicate that it is something entirely different than the fantasies you might have or used to have of sense things?

[Dennis Mahar]

seeker likes the broken hammer for toolness.

[Leyla Shen]

Why do you cling to god language, Pam?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Why do you cling to god language, Pam?

I was going to ask her the very same thing.

If the possibility of the wisdom and love of God consciousness was a momentary fantasy, would it be on your mind as much as it is? Does its persistence to exist not indicate that it is something entirely different than the fantasies you might have or used to have of sense things?

It doesn't matter if you open your eyes a bit and recognize some things about existence, or think such recognition makes for a real nice experience, none of that is eternally lasting, we aren't talking about you having had insight for a few years or however long, that's a vanishing fraction, placing some meaning there and calling it a blissful time for now doesn't matter, whether now or in the future when there are worse conditions, you'll recognize the repeated pains of existence.

Would you think your insights will remain as clear if you had a painful brain tumor, or some kind of mental deficiency? you wouldn't even be able to eat your own food let alone contemplate emptiness.

The experiences/thoughts (and delusions or sufferings) we have are not a choice, there is no free will in the arising for appearances, have you or Dennis taken that into account?

[Dennis Mahar]

Old age, sickness and death 'culturally encoded' as a desert landscape.

socialised seeker to whom suffering is his belonging.

it is a ques­tion of what we graft onto the reality in the midst of which we already exist.

imputing mind.
lone wolf.

all your speaking seeker is an endless victim impact statement.
who is the perp?

What is speaking?

[Cahoot]

Would you think your insights will remain as clear if you had a painful brain tumor, or some kind of mental deficiency? you wouldn't even be able to eat your own food let alone contemplate emptiness.

If you can’t eat your own food, then sooner or later, the way you will effortlessly begin to contemplate emptiness will redefine clarity.

Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.

[Pam Seeback]

Why do you cling to god language, Pam?

Not clinging, using. Those familiar with the bible will understand my reasoning.

[Pam Seeback]

Why do you cling to god language, Pam?

I was going to ask her the very same thing.

If the possibility of the wisdom and love of God consciousness was a momentary fantasy, would it be on your mind as much as it is? Does its persistence to exist not indicate that it is something entirely different than the fantasies you might have or used to have of sense things?

It doesn't matter if you open your eyes a bit and recognize some things about existence, or think such recognition makes for a real nice experience, none of that is eternally lasting, we aren't talking about you having had insight for a few years or however long, that's a vanishing fraction, placing some meaning there and calling it a blissful time for now doesn't matter, whether now or in the future when there are worse conditions, you'll recognize the repeated pains of existence.

Would you think your insights will remain as clear if you had a painful brain tumor, or some kind of mental deficiency? you wouldn't even be able to eat your own food let alone contemplate emptiness.

The experiences/thoughts (and delusions or sufferings) we have are not a choice, there is no free will in the arising for appearances, have you or Dennis taken that into account?

Here's where using the G-word comes in handy. It is not self consciousness that retains insights it's that insights born of wisdom inquiry cause God to become more conscious of Its infinite things, things such as logic and love. Things that are already present in the Godhead as unconscious possibilities that are not forgotten once made conscious. This is not an absolute truth, rather, it is a logical truth. Evolution of consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

There's a problem with the G-word as Pye tried to point out.
nouns and verbs.
God isn't static, it's becoming, verbing, streaming endlessly
God-ing

bubble, bubble, toil and trouble? (:

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's a problem with the G-word as Pye tried to point out.
nouns and verbs.
God isn't static, it's becoming, verbing, streaming endlessly
God-ing

bubble, bubble, toil and trouble? (:

Any true God can only be constant and non-existent, non-doing, non-becoming, non-selfing and definitely not streaming.

Illusion streams,

• the self drips:
  • our ignorance bubbles

[Dennis Mahar]

'static' must be withdrawn then because it's not evident or is it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

'static' must be withdrawn then because it's not evident or is it?

True, any evidence ends up being movement, lost in causality, in translation. Like knowing about a crime because the lack of corpse. Missing persons?

[Leyla Shen]

Here's where using the G-word comes in handy. It is not self consciousness that retains insights it's that insights born of wisdom inquiry cause God to become more conscious of Its infinite things, things such as logic and love. Things that are already present in the Godhead as unconscious possibilities that are not forgotten once made conscious. This is not an absolute truth, rather, it is a logical truth. Evolution of consciousness.

That is not at all logical. Unconscious possibilities in the non-self-conscious infinite (which "retains insights of its infinite things"?) not forgotten by what/whom once made conscious?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Here's where using the G-word comes in handy. It is not self consciousness that retains insights it's that insights born of wisdom inquiry cause God to become more conscious of Its infinite things, things such as <span class="kjrh060r" id="kjrh060r_2">logic and love</span>. Things that are already present in the Godhead as unconscious possibilities that are not forgotten once made conscious. This is not an absolute truth, rather, it is a logical truth. Evolution of consciousness.

That is not at all logical. Unconscious possibilities in the non-self-conscious infinite (which "retains insights of its infinite things"?) not forgotten by what/whom once made conscious?

Yeah.

You said "that are already present in the Godhead as unconscious possibilities that are not forgotten once made conscious"

Why would they be forgotten once made conscious? Don't you mean that aren't forgotten when unconscious of them?

Old age, sickness and death 'culturally encoded' as a desert landscape.

socialised seeker to whom suffering is his belonging.

it is a ques­tion of what we graft onto the reality in the midst of which we already exist.

imputing mind.
lone wolf.

all your speaking seeker is an endless victim impact statement.
who is the perp?

What is speaking?

You did it again, you just said...that's meaning-making or delusion which is culturally-encoded.

...You think it's suffering and negative but it's really not, you're just imputing the scenario victim.

But it's bullshit lol, I'm not doing anything, toddlers didn't choose to do it, those with deficiencies aren't imputing it, suffering arises despite what you want or think, how hard is that to understand?

You haven't yet addressed the point that you don't have mastery over the arising of thoughts/insights or appearances, so what makes you say it is logical that one can control situational suffering? (After that explain how one can do it over eternity)

[Dennis Mahar]

You tell a good yarn seeker.
what's the pay off?

How come a mighty steam engine that pulls carraiges won't budge without fire in the boiler?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No fuel.
Same old evasion techniques.