Enlightenment Made Easy!

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In order to suffer you have to buy in to it..
it's a big ticket item.
serves a purpose.
club membership.
'Ain't it awful about........'
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Russell Parr »

Dennis, do you remember life before disillusionment? Surely you were born into it.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
Dennis, do you remember life before disillusionment? Surely you were born into it.
I've always found completion in detachment.
I bet you have too.

the dread of nothing is beautiful because what appears is made lustrous, exquisite.
It's how it is 'listened'.

Coming-to-Be and Ceasing-to-Be'.

Nevertheless,
there's 2 truths or points of view both of which report like a journalist.

there's the I-object reporting its worldly experience.

The Immanent is reporting from:
Not-I,
the Universe is Myself.

The Immanent is reporting a point of view called 'the ultimate truth' or perfect wisdom.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
I went to the store and bought oranges: concepts used, where's the polarity? I love existence: concepts used, where's the polarity? I love dry wine: concepts used, where's the polarity?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A point of view.
conceptual
inferential cogniser.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:A point of view.
conceptual
inferential cogniser.
You didn't answer my question. Where's the polarity?
Nevertheless,
there's 2 truths or points of view both of which report like a journalist.

there's the I-object reporting its worldly experience.

The Immanent is reporting from:
Not-I,
the Universe is Myself.

The Immanent is reporting a point of view called 'the ultimate truth' or perfect wisdom.
There is no difference between the point of view of ultimate truth and the subject conceptualizing its truth. They are one and the same reality. "All souls are mine saith the Lord."
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Non conceptual.

Put it this way.
Conceptualising mind filters appearances in to categories and names so everything is laid out in little boxes.


non conceptual mind knows all the categories and names and also knows everything is laid out in little boxes by conception.

pink ones and blue ones and primrose too
little boxes. little boxes

have you had the dream about opening all the little boxes,
exciting!

empty boxes.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote: There is no difference between the point of view of ultimate truth and the subject conceptualizing its truth. They are one and the same reality. "All souls are mine saith the Lord."
In a mental hospital, you may encounter people who claim to be teapots and other such items.

The self is only known correctly when it is unassigned.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

TheImmanent wrote:
movingalways wrote: There is no difference between the point of view of ultimate truth and the subject conceptualizing its truth. They are one and the same reality. "All souls are mine saith the Lord."
In a mental hospital, you may encounter people who claim to be teapots and other such items.

The self is only known correctly when it is unassigned.
And the people who claim to be teapots and other such items experience the effects of these causes and conditions which is to be in a mental hospital. The wisdom of causality is mirror wisdom. Conceptual reality can be ignorant as well as wise.

Knowledge = assignment of concepts, therefore, a known self cannot be an unassigned self.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Non conceptual.

Put it this way.
Conceptualising mind filters appearances in to categories and names so everything is laid out in little boxes.


non conceptual mind knows all the categories and names and also knows everything is laid out in little boxes by conception.

pink ones and blue ones and primrose too
little boxes. little boxes

have you had the dream about opening all the little boxes,
exciting!

empty boxes.
Your belief that a filter exists is why you believe opposites and a polarity exist. You still haven't answered my question: Where is the polarity?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In your prejudice
the protection racket
Dread of nothing

you don't read the responses because you are protecting something emotionally
a button is raw.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote: Conceptual reality can be ignorant as well as wise.
Indeed. Since there are true ideas and misconceptions. But even misconceptions are true as misconceptions. This is the difference in the point of view of ultimate truth and the subject conceptualizing its truth, as you put it. Both belong, but one internally misrepresents how it belongs.
Knowledge = assignment of concepts, therefore, a known self cannot be an unassigned self.
How is a concept assigned, and to what? By a person, to oranges? These are themselves conceptual natures.

Form is known by formless knowing. Formless knowing is known by formless knowing. Formless knowing is the self, when the self is unassigned.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In order to filter form you are generating formless categorically;
in such a way formless is thingified and becomes a religion.
just another form to be desired/feared.

that is,
form and formless are not the same conceptually.
form and formless are not different nonconceptually.

a nanosecond flash of insight.
The absence of a real referrant,
groundlessness,
nowhere to stand,
falling off the cliff
yoiks,
samahdi.

knowing conceptually is like the booby prize.

this generated illusion is simply wonderful.
a garden of earthly delights,
a stage for stagecraft,
the grass is green where water is, where water isn't not...dependent arising.... how cool is that.
astonishing.

conceptual mind is tool-being generating kinds of experience for the time being.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Fox »

Orenholt wrote:Here's a basic understanding of Truth, Reality and Perceptions.

Logic>Empiricism

Contrast=subjective=illusion=empirical=Scientific
Consistency=objective=real=logical=Ultimate

Slavery IS Slavery = true (subjectively)
Freedom IS Freedom = true (subjectively)
Slavery IS Freedom = false (subjectively)
Slavery AND Freedom = false (Objectively)

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

Objective: intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.


Truth that can be verified through consistency of empirical data is called a scientific fact. Truth that can be verified through consistency of logic is called an "ultimate Truth". Empirical data can only be consistent within its own context at best which is why Einstein said that "Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one".

It's kind of like if I write a book with a coherent story. Just because it "makes sense" for a character to do something like cast a fire spell at their enemy it doesn't necessarily have bearing in reality. It could be based on a true story OR it could be a work of total fiction, either way, it is not an actual event.

How do we define what's consistent? By contrast or lack there of.

Take the following picture for example:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GoFM_BtOvkI/U ... lusion.png




By our immediate senses we might think Square A and Square B are different shades because of the context. This is like empirical data. However if we look to the right we see that they, despite appearances within context, are actually the same shade. This is like logical truth.

This is where it may get tricky sounding.
All things (contents of the universe) are defined by their contrast to one another.
Light is brighter than the dark and fire is hotter than ice and so on.
The universe itself is defined by being "all that is".
So if the universe is defined as "all that is" it necessarily must be ALL that is, which means we cannot contrast it to anything.

If you think I am being inconsistent in this please point out where I am doing so.
If you think I am being consistent yet still somehow "incorrect" please explain.


TL;DR? Consistency = True, Contrast = False
You, derive-logic from a tool-box, but, the infancy is still there....One, cannot simply go about winning without the cover sheet.

There, is infinite possibilities that someone will clarify this.....by the end.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

TheImmanent: How is a concept assigned, and to what? By a person, to oranges? These are themselves conceptual natures.
Concepts are assigned by will to be (thinking-feeling) manifested as individual units of consciousness (subjective view). Which, by the way, is not the philosophy of solipsism as Dennis suggested I was presenting. Subjectivity of thinking can be called the self is one wishes, but from my experience, when the concept of self is introduced, it often produces marble-in-the-mouth duality struggles such as (I mean no disrespect in pointing this out):
Form is known by formless knowing. Formless knowing is known by formless knowing. Formless knowing is the self, when the self is unassigned.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:In your prejudice
the protection racket
Dread of nothing

you don't read the responses because you are protecting something emotionally
a button is raw.
Dennis, it is you, not I who is protecting something emotionally, your attachment/prejudice to the feeling state of bliss. Which means it is you, not I who has dread of nothing.

In response to my original post you said:
Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
You made an absolute statement here. One that if you were willing to reason through would be revealed to you to be false. But, because you have decided that reasoning is unfruitful and bliss is the fruity be-all and end-all, you refuse to do so. You drop your concept bombs and then retreat to Candyland.

You liberally analyze me. My analysis of you: you are not ready to leave your fear of concepts.
Last edited by Pam Seeback on Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

not that.
get off the grog.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:not that.
get off the grog.
You answered my post within a minute. I rest my case.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote:
TheImmanent: How is a concept assigned, and to what? By a person, to oranges? These are themselves conceptual natures.
Concepts are assigned by will to be (thinking-feeling) manifested as individual units of consciousness (subjective view).
A will is nothing but the conception of a self, i.e., desire to fulfill the conception of self. Suffering is the discrepancy between the idea of a self and the idea of its expression. There is no will without a self.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Enlightenment Made Easy!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You answered my post within a minute. I rest my case.

Case of chardonnay dionysius?
as if.
Locked