The question of death

[Dennis Mahar]

The president had a toothache.
A CNN guy was sent around to interview the tooth.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Sure, Dennis agrees with that.

Proceed.

Are you sure? Because the replies below don't really clear things up. I'd love to hear it from him.

The Inquiry has never found inherent existence.

The president had a toothache.
A CNN guy was sent around to interview the tooth.

Anyway, proceeding. If there is suffering arising with appearances, brought about by various causes, the conditions of existence, attachment, pain, delusion, and so forth. Is it not clear that we are in fact subject to the possibility of the arising of the appearance or experience of suffering, rather than these experiences being "an option"? Could you logically say that you are forever free from the possibility of suffering? And if not, then that would reveal 'bliss' as a transient state rather than the "always/already" nature of existence.

[Dennis Mahar]

There's an appearance suffering
imputed.
form is empty.
it has no true existence.
nothing does.

enlightened being is imputed on emptiness/bliss.
because what is is imputing mind.

you keep asserting an I on a collection of parts

[Cahoot]

Question:

Could you logically say that you are forever free from the possibility of suffering?

Answer:

There's an appearance suffering
imputed.
form is empty.
it has no true existence.
nothing does.

enlightened being is imputed on emptiness/bliss.
because what is is imputing mind.

you keep asserting an I on a collection of parts

Translated answer:

Logically: without the cause of suffering, there is no condition of suffering.

The clouds of suffering are merely an ornament of empty sky, not the cause of sky.

[Dennis Mahar]

What has to be made clear is modes of Being and thinking about Being.
the conventional mode and the ultimate mode and the union of these modes.

The ultimate meaning of Being is timeless.
The conventional mode (personhood) is bracketed between the bookends of birth and death, 'being-in-time'.

[Dennis Mahar]

Being-in-the-world, Being-in-time,

what time is it for the baby,
what time is it for the girl,
what time is it for the boy
what time is it for the old
what time is it for the animals,
the insects,
the plants

Is there time for prejudice?

In the midst of others,
who are you being?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Question:

Could you logically say that you are forever free from the possibility of suffering?

Logically: without the cause of suffering, there is no condition of suffering.

That brings about the same question with a different term.... could you logically say that you are forever free from the possibility of the arising of that which causes suffering?

There's an appearance suffering
....
it has no true existence.
nothing does.

Agreed. Yet still it appears to, even if that is caused by temporary delusion/meaning-making/imputing or whatever else you say, the suffering still appears as real, it is as real as it has ever been to many.

What you're saying isn't that "there is no such thing as suffering" you are saying as Cahoot translates, which leaves the possibility of no suffering.

Again, no one is disputing that one can be in bliss and not feel suffering, I'm disputing your apparent claim that this is an eternal state of bliss,"always/already", the implied claim that it isn't simply temporary, and hence that the arising of the experience of suffering can be left behind forever. Feel free to elaborate.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's a nonconceptual understanding.

Who are you being?

If you say the dreaming mind is false you have to say the waking mind is false.
If you say the waking mind is true you have to say the dreaming mind is true.

In a dream your child can die and you suffer tremendously and wake up.
Nothing happened.

[Cahoot]

Forever only exists in this instant, right now. Anything else that you call forever is merely your imagination, inferring. Just an extrapolation of an imputation.

I once saw this nature film. A lion had chased down a large hoofed animal in Africa. Lions kill their prey with a suffocating clamp on the throat, which prevents the prey from injuring the lion with a kick or a bite. For whatever reason the lion had skipped this step in the natural process and was eating the prey while it was still alive. Maybe she wanted to get some food in her belly before the males showed up to muscle her away from the chow.

In this culture, by the time a person reaches school age, he or she has seen death depicted many times on TV and in movies. The drama, the story, the facial expressions, the sound effects, the music, the meaning, the implications, the anticipation, the dramatic reactions, and so on, have been burned into young imaginations.

When reality departs from imagination people often experience disassociation, and then reality doesn’t seem real. Reality differs from the anticipated reality that is created by imaginative vicarious experience. Quite often the mind will struggle to make reality conform to imagination, and in the struggle is suffering. Later, after the event, this suffering is compounded by conditioned mind’s memory of what happened. The mind says, it was a horrible thing that happened, so I must have suffered.

In the nature film the prey was on the ground, on its side, its head raised. Its head was raised up high and it was steadily gazing at the lion, while the lion was eating the prey’s stomach. The prey was not screaming or struggling, not trying to get away. It was literally being eaten alive and it was simply watching the lion, almost like they were having a conversation, or a communion, and both appeared calm about the whole business so that on the surface, without imagination to impute the significance of the moment, and by the movements of the animals, the appearance was sui generis.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well that instant or "right now" is without end, I'm happy to use that term instead.

Though I can't see the difference in calling it an instant without end.

I have read what you wrote, but you seem to be saying yourself that suffering can arise conditionally, due to delusion, imaginations, dramatic reaction, etc.

I fail to see where/how you obtained the certainty that it has been left behind, never to return throughout end-less existence.

[Cahoot]

You attempt to apply borrowed principles to the specific, i.e., “Life is Suffering,” (which btw is not an absolute since it is subject to change).

When you turn it around and place attention on deriving principles from the specific you will be less likely to call wrong what you don’t understand, and less inclined to rag on the they and them that you only understand in terms of your own limitations.

[Dennis Mahar]

Time is measurement conventionally.
What time is it?
suppose I play a chord on a piano and the sound continues to sound on and on and then ceases.
Now there is silence.
the sound is past and there is no longer a sound.
It was future before it sounded and could not be measured yet because it was not yet and now it cannot be measured because it is no longer.

There's always/already a possibility of bliss if the generator chord is struck within the hearing of a listening always/already accounting for silence.

You seem to be anxious about time seeker.
The object you're looking at 'endless existence' has time as its structure.
Time implies interval and duration so that 'endless existence' being duration constitutes a contradiction in terms.

in your 'endless existence' construct,
to you 'endless existence' means suffering.

Neitzsche turned all that over nicely and,
you provide the meaning.
imputing mind.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You attempt to apply borrowed principles to the specific, i.e., “Life is Suffering,” (which btw is not an absolute since it is subject to change).

When you turn it around and place attention on deriving principles from the specific you will be less likely to call wrong what you don’t understand, and less inclined to rag on the they and them that you only understand in terms of your own limitations.

You're ignoring the inquiry completely, all I asked was that if you are certain suffering will not arise again.< full stop. I'm talking to and asking you, I'm not asking about teenagers and animals. All you've said is about the causes of suffering in certain conditions, but not whether they can be overcome indefinitely.

And if you're not certain there will not be suffering then that's the end of the inquiry and the point has been made.

The object you're looking at 'endless existence' has time as its structure.[/quote

There will be the arising of 'mental formations' indefinitely, there is no 'death' or end of existence. "Time" is a meaningless term as you know, its use or non-use doesn't change the truth that it is going to stay how it is. (How it is being the right here and now of existence/experience which is timeless)


It looks like you've taken "you provide the meaning" and turned it around to mean there is no truth, except for what you impute/imagine.

I'm assuming that you don't actually mean that?

If you're not providing the meaning there is still reality and the truth which is a certain way, when not distorted by 'burned imagination' as Cahoot describes.

[Dennis Mahar]

You're talking about a structure inherently existing aka 'endless existence' that 'a self suffers from'.
some of the time
all of the the time
at no time
by the time I get to Phoenix she'll be rising
over the rainbow

That is imputed,

The Buddha taught:
only 4 possible ways for a thing to exist.
It is
It isn't
Neither
nor both
none of those quite measure up.

his theory 'emptiness' is the theory of no-theory.

The middle way 'It is' avoids nihilism and 'It fails to exist from its own side' avoids essentialism.

dependent arising.

You don't know what happens next.
the crafted response of emptiness the understanding, bodhichitta, is the felt experience, soft and brave.

[Cahoot]

You attempt to apply borrowed principles to the specific, i.e., “Life is Suffering,” (which btw is not an absolute since it is subject to change).

When you turn it around and place attention on deriving principles from the specific you will be less likely to call wrong what you don’t understand, and less inclined to rag on the they and them that you only understand in terms of your own limitations.

You're ignoring the inquiry completely, all I asked was that if you are certain suffering will not arise again.< full stop. I'm talking to and asking you, I'm not asking about teenagers and animals. All you've said is about the causes of suffering in certain conditions, but not whether they can be overcome indefinitely.

And if you're not certain there will not be suffering then that's the end of the inquiry and the point has been made.

The inquiry is actually: The question of death (see thread title). Once again, look to yourself rather than they or them. You suspect that you are ignoring the inquiry completely.

Does whatever point you’re trying to make relate to the actual inquiry? If you are trying to make a point, why don’t you just proceed? If you proceed, and your concerns with suffering have something to do with this point, then perhaps you can define what you think the term "suffering" means, and then in turn other adults can respond, if so moved, and if they can make heads or tails out of it.

Speaking of teenagers, reminds me of how youngsters are apt to create a personal world of questions and definitions, regardless of the actual circumstance, and then demand that others step into that world. It’s called the terrible two’s.

:D

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I wasn't referring to the thread, which is obvious, I'm talking about the back and forth with Dennis related to suffering for weeks, if not months, which began with his repetition of "bliss".

I've already made the point: you have neither claimed to have, nor provided any logical reason that explains the repeated implication that you are certain suffering has been overcome/left-behind and that it could not return.

(Or that suffering is only an imagined result of imputing/meaning-making, and having recognized that, it could not arise....or whatever it is that you guys are saying.)

If you are going to effectively reply for and translate for Dennis, then elaborate on how you were also lead to the certainty (which is implied as not being subject to change) that it is "always/already bliss" or that "suffering is optional".


If you would prefer a very clear inquiry... Explain the two short quotes: "always/already bliss" and "suffering is optional".

The Buddha taught:
only 4 possible ways for a thing to exist.
It is
It isn't
Neither
nor both
none of those quite measure up.

his theory 'emptiness' is the theory of no-theory.

The middle way 'It is' avoids nihilism and 'It fails to exist from its own side' avoids essentialism.

OK.
Did you always know that?
Nope.
Did you ever believe you were suffering?
I'm sure.

He "taught" something, I'm assuming that means not everyone knows it.
Those who don't know may experience suffering as real/painful/horrible.
Whether that is delusional, imputed, or imaginative.
Are you certain such delusion "experiencing suffering as real/painful/horrible" will not arise?

[Dennis Mahar]

There's no logic for suffering.
check your base of designation.
it's imputed.

[Cahoot]

I wasn't referring to the thread, which is obvious, I'm talking about the back and forth with Dennis related to suffering for weeks, if not months, which began with his repetition of "bliss".

I've already made the point: you have neither claimed to have, nor provided any logical reason that explains the repeated implication that you are certain suffering has been overcome/left-behind and that it could not return.

(Or that suffering is only an imagined result of imputing/meaning-making, and having recognized that, it could not arise....or whatever it is that you guys are saying.)

If you are going to effectively reply for and translate for Dennis, then elaborate on how you were also lead to the certainty (which is implied as not being subject to change) that it is "always/already bliss" or that "suffering is optional".


If you would prefer a very clear inquiry... Explain the two short quotes: "always/already bliss" and "suffering is optional".

Since your attention invariably focuses on how Dennis has been making you suffer for months, and since shifting the energy of your focus to other topics is not yet within capacity, then instead of trolling up legitimate threads with distractions from the thread topic, you may want to start a new thread about your topic. Though doing so is inappropriate for the conditions as defined by the forum, maybe others have suffered because of Dennis and would participate, though since I have not, I would not. ;)

[Dennis Mahar]

He's creating himself in somebody else's image and reads from that script.
It looks like a winner to him that sets up a payoff,

Hence samsara is recognised as nirvana.

Being is always/already pure, uncontaminated and a priori to house of language predicates.

[Cahoot]

Seeker, the real you never suffers, and never will.

I think that Seeker is frustrated because of a perceived obtuseness of dialogue, which he suspects originates during the transmission, rather than the reception, but as long as honest efforts are made in the transmission, then everything’s cool.

Frustration is an aspect of dukkha. When dukkha and everything else is put in the perspective of this thread title, then dukkha and everything else is understood. From the understanding follows intent, thought, action, perception, interpretation, projection, all the imputing. You’re the one who sees that you see this, as am I.

[Dennis Mahar]

To be unreal is to be unborn and unceasing.

In the three periods of time.
That which is immutable
Is the state of bliss if it's cottoned on to.


The notion of impermanence is the 'bugbear', the dissatisfaction.
It's situationally 'out-of-control' experientially.
Scary.

If you knew what was gonna happen next it would be boring as batshit.
Then you'd have something to complain about.

All things prevail for him for whom emptiness prevails; nothing whatever prevails for him for whom emptiness prevails.

[Dennis Mahar]

Wisdom is timeless.

If you lock your girlfriend and your dog in the boot of your car for 3 days.
After 3 days let them out.
Your dog will wag its tail and jump for joy to see you.
The girlfriend will try to kill you.

There is no possibility for freedom in a girlfriend.

[Cahoot]

Feed the wolf, fast the wolf. Wolf stew.

[Dennis Mahar]

The 'girlfriend' cannot be separated from her emptiness.
She is an appearance to mind.
She is conceptually imputed and is not truly existent.

She is comprised of parts,
walking, talking, thinking, feeling, angry, sad, loving, hating, happy, depressed, conniving, prejudicial, preferences, aversions.
changing moment to moment.
flickering.
An inherently existing I cannot be found among the parts or independent of the parts.

There is no possibility for freedom believing in samsaric illusion.

She is a play of the mind is she not?

[Kunga]

She is a play of the mind is she not?

He plays with himself
But there's no thing to play with ............





lol