The two truths contradiction

[Dennis Mahar]

The conceptual natures are defined in relation to each other. This is what they are, after all. Thus they are coherrent, i.e., logical.

Categories/identities are valid cognitions appearing to conventional mind.

Are you sure they exist objectively/independently of the conventional mode of being?

do they exist independently of the word referrent?

are they not a human 'belonging'?
this goes with that.

Clearly they are empty from their own side.
Imputed.

Nevertheless they are functional in order to for the sake of.

they are used to advantage in the matter of suffering most nobly, even tho' ultimately, sufferer and suffering are impossible ways to be aside from a belief in inherent existence.

thought, word, deed generates consequences.

suffering is imputed on the base of a belief in inherent existence
a way out of suffering is imputed on the base of emptiness/bliss

mental constructs, in order to

Strictly speaking there is nothing at all but the true self, the essence of all distinctions. Your essence. Perfect, timeless and pristine

.

Yeah well, nothing exists solidly ultimately and appears to conventionally,
the point of it all is activity.

Forensic science recognises a chair breaks down to atoms and the body breaks down to atoms and yet the chair functions to support the body.

the projection has to have functionality
if it doesn't look and feel 'real' the 'golly gee wow factor' drops off.

[TheImmanent]

The conceptual natures are defined in relation to each other. This is what they are, after all. Thus they are coherrent, i.e., logical.

Categories/identities are valid cognitions appearing to conventional mind.

Are you sure they exist objectively/independently of the conventional mode of being?

The conception of any form implies the existence of infinity of forms due to what a form is, i.e., a concept defined in relation to other concepts.

do they exist independently of the word referrent?

Forms are reference points not just in the sense that they are refered to by a limited mind, but in the sense that they are defined in relation (refered to in definition).

Is a conceptual nature valid if it is not refered to by a limited mind from its own perspective? Yes, the conceptual nature impinges on the conceptual nature of the body-mind whether or not it is conceived by this limited mind. The limited mind does not create or destroy concepts by conceiving, it is itself the concept of a limited mind conceiving.

they are used to advantage in the matter of suffering most nobly, even tho' ultimately, sufferer and suffering are impossible ways to be aside from a belief in inherent existence.

The sufferer is the misconception of inherent existence of a conceptual self, i.e., the assignment of a self (in the conventional mode) to a particular distinction in the infinite array.

Does this mean that there is no inherent existence?

No, it means that form is not inherent existence.

suffering is imputed on the base of a belief in inherent existence

Suffering is imputed on the base of a belief in inherent existence of a particular form (conventional mode).

Strictly speaking there is nothing at all but the true self, the essence of all distinctions. Your essence. Perfect, timeless and pristine

Yeah well, nothing exists solidly ultimately and appears to conventionally,
the point of it all is activity.

Nothing exists solidly ultimately, but formlessly. And appears to conventionally.

In the conventional mode, there is activity among a myriad of things. In the ultimate mode, even the fastest moving bodies are perfectly still.

In the conventional mode, pleasure and suffering is distinguished in regard to a misconceived self being compromised by other misconceived selves. In the ultimate mode, there is a single formless self that cannot be compromised.

[Fox]

I would' imagine.

[Dennis Mahar]

In the ultimate mode, there is a single formless self that cannot be compromised.

Setting up categories/identities follows from a departure from that as it plays out conceptually.
where a power differential is created betwixt respective categories/identities.
a ranking scenario.

categories are about promulgating differences
categorical thinking separates and generates prejudice and nasties like religion which seeks to exploit an apparent power vacuum that opens up from the insistence on inherent differences.

it has to be asked of categorical thinking:
a means?
to what end?

a fall from grace?

that is to say, a philosopher, a thinker of no true rank.
in order to ameliorate the onset of suffering would be cognisant of what gets set up as a consequence of enrolment in any particular meaning structure.
The project would be a return to grace.
the long and winding road.

[Fox]

A=A not B.

[Fox]

The conceptual natures are defined in relation to each other. This is what they are, after all. Thus they are coherrent, i.e., logical.

Categories/identities are valid cognitions appearing to conventional mind.

Are you sure they exist objectively/independently of the conventional mode of being?

do they exist independently of the word referrent?

are they not a human 'belonging'?
this goes with that.

Clearly they are empty from their own side.
Imputed.

Nevertheless they are functional in order to for the sake of.

they are used to advantage in the matter of suffering most nobly, even tho' ultimately, sufferer and suffering are impossible ways to be aside from a belief in inherent existence.

thought, word, deed generates consequences.

suffering is imputed on the base of a belief in inherent existence
a way out of suffering is imputed on the base of emptiness/bliss

mental constructs, in order to

Strictly speaking there is nothing at all but the true self, the essence of all distinctions. Your essence. Perfect, timeless and pristine

.

Yeah well, nothing exists solidly ultimately and appears to conventionally,
the point of it all is activity.

Forensic science recognises a chair breaks down to atoms and the body breaks down to atoms and yet the chair functions to support the body.

the projection has to have functionality
if it doesn't look and feel 'real' the 'golly gee wow factor' drops off.

I have a soul, Dennus, it twerks out just fine!

[Fox]

The mind-body shape comes from the intellect..or, per-say side(s)....which, shhit on bricks when, you're dealing with the facts....coherent reasoning show. Reason-
Why? We think-

[Fox]

Thank you...or, is that just the virtuous sound(s) of our imaginable thinking?

I say, you trigger emotion{emoji} which drives people to their brim of consciousness. If, I were you....I'd live in a tube too. Think-

It's a subtlety to look at a woman? With-vigor? When, out of respect you're chancing the wrong-thing?

[TheImmanent]

In the ultimate mode, there is a single formless self that cannot be compromised.

Setting up categories/identities follows from a departure from that as it plays out conceptually.
where a power differential is created betwixt respective categories/identities.
a ranking scenario.

categories are about promulgating differences
categorical thinking separates and generates prejudice and nasties like religion which seeks to exploit an apparent power vacuum that opens up from the insistence on inherent differences.

it has to be asked of categorical thinking:
a means?
to what end?

a fall from grace?

that is to say, a philosopher, a thinker of no true rank.
in order to ameliorate the onset of suffering would be cognisant of what gets set up as a consequence of enrolment in any particular meaning structure.
The project would be a return to grace.
the long and winding road.

The categories are presented so that they can be discarded.

[Dennis Mahar]

Gateless gate.
astonishment.

[Fox]

"The most common form of despair is not being who you are."
- Søren Kierkegaard

[Dennis Mahar]

You're rummaging around in all your little boxes (categories/filters) trying to come up with a powerful statement.
you've probably got a 100 boxes to sort thru' to find one that looks like it might work.

That is categorical thinking.

Pam's got her Kahlil Gibran box that's supposed to enable her to pull out a magic rabbit.
Now you've pulled out the Kierkegaard bunny.

Aristotle's set up was not for being right or wrong but for making powerful arguments.

To have nous for that.

The argument undefeated is 'emptiness'.
can't be refuted.

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.
you provide the meaning.

Whattya got?
tick the boxes.

animal, vegetable, mineral...yes, no, yes, no
black, white, red, brown...yes, no, yes, no
tall. short, medium....yes, no, yes, no
prejudicial concepts.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

work with the unconscious mind.
command of it the deliverance of enlightened being
soon enough your dreams will be wonderful and an experience of purity in waking mind will show up.

That is, in order to for the sake of, yes?

What you have said over time is that "nothing is 'wrong', how could it be".

The 'in order to for the sake of' is not a "must be" for truth, but is rather opened up by the freedom of possibility or freedom of meaning revealed in groundlessness/blank canvas, and of course, there's nothing 'wrong' with it.

It seems that people are confused by, "providing the meaning/ imputing self,other,animal,vegetable,etc",
in the sense that one might think you are saying there is something wrong or ignorant about doing this, when that's not the case.

You won't see me discussing suffering again, not that I think it will never arise, it's only because it would be similar to an actor being in fear of the next scene in which he is shot on stage in a play. That fear being a result of his "over-involvement".

In regard to philosphy (in order to for the sake of) one shouldn't attempt to distance themselves from involvement nor should they be encumbered by it.
Forget the drama, pluck that splinter.

[Dennis Mahar]

Is that a No?
Just say No.
Tick the box.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Don't understand that.
If anything, it's that no,yes,neither is merely dependent on what the "sake of" is.

[Dennis Mahar]

for instance:

kunga has her in order to-
kind

for the sake of?

categorical thinking.

a yes box aka 'kind'

and a no box 'not-kind'.

a set of assessments, a range of options, a winning formula for survival or protection of...

ultimately, there are no boxes.

nevertheless,
mind and its objects are participatory,
heavy involvement.
love and compassion shakes down to 'method',
a subtle wherewithall for the sake of harmonious interactions causing bliss which is detachment.
a categorical enrolment as a commitment,
you provide the meaning.
it is empty and meaningless 'til you access and take on the meaning as felt experience.

Neitzsche recommended 'say yes to everything'.
is that a powerful argument for generating a beneficial participatoriness?

You could say yes to whatever is proposed because it does exist as a proposal.
listening can happen.
Wisdom can now show up in 'how does it exist'.

Someone can pull out a Gibran quote and forget that a massive inference is made.
that Gibran is correct.

then they say a 'leap of faith' is necessary.
is the leap of faith correct.
inference.

theology means theory.