Giving up on enlightenment

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Post deleted.
Last edited by Pam Seeback on Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

MY experience of love is moment by moment transcendence of conditions. MY experience of logic is the same. The only difference between the two faculties of consciousness is that one is feeling sourced while the other is not. Your beacon of completeness in detachment, while obviously fulfilling and satisfying for you does not speak to my logic of what being enlightened means. As for your statement about 'big' feelings being an addiction, there is no way I accept that view of my experience. As for your declaring that deep feeling interferes with subtle mind, I also reject this as being true as one can stand in the UNMOVING deep of release and let logic have its say. I declare this post to be my evidence of my logic-feeling experience of finding MY ground of being.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

See,
that's a declaration.

an abstracted territorial stake-out.
creating a gap in which a kind of self shows up for experience.

what's at stake?
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote:MY experience of love is moment by moment transcendence of conditions. MY experience of logic is the same. The only difference between the two faculties of consciousness is that one is feeling sourced while the other is not. Your beacon of completeness in detachment, while obviously fulfilling and satisfying for you does not speak to my logic of what being enlightened means. As for your statement about 'big' feelings being an addiction, there is no way I accept that view of my experience. As for your declaring that deep feeling interferes with subtle mind, I also reject this as being true as one can stand in the UNMOVING deep of release and let logic have its say. I declare this post to be my evidence of my logic-feeling experience of finding MY ground of being.
You identify with a self-conception, which is just an idea and thus cannot pin you down. The identification with a particular self-conception limits the experience of love, it does not create it. While your self-conception may be the conception of a virtuous and noble self, it is not the transcendence of conditions you speak of — transcendence of conditions is to not identify consciousness with a particular idea.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

While your self-conception may be the conception of a virtuous and noble self, it is not the transcendence of conditions you speak of
Yes, it's still immersion in a meaning category.
a bit of a wank.
wearing a cossie.
cartoonesque proportions.
transcendence of conditions is to not identify consciousness with a particular idea
absence of meaning in what appears to mind including a self-conception projection.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
While your self-conception may be the conception of a virtuous and noble self, it is not the transcendence of conditions you speak of
Yes, it's still immersion in a meaning category.
a bit of a wank.
wearing a cossie.
cartoonesque proportions.
transcendence of conditions is to not identify consciousness with a particular idea
absence of meaning in what appears to mind including a self-conception projection.
Absence of love is another subtle identification with a self-conception.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

love is 'set free'
non-attachment.
fullness.
for nothing in particular.

an experience of a lack of supply causes the seeking of a meaning category to attach to
love does not rescue. It teaches into 'nobody's listening'.
calm abiding.
all roads lead to rome.
time for Being.

Is seawater salty?
No,
The salt is salty.
Meditation to extract the salt (concerns about supply)
pure water.

To teach into a condition 'nobody's listening' is love.
calm abiding.

Teacher (Buddha) replaces perp
Mediator replaces rescuer
Student replaces victim.

The 'victim story' in it's supply panic mode is popular.

How many of those dark clouds that pass thru' the environmentally pure mind are a panic about supply?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

TheImmanent wrote:
movingalways wrote:MY experience of love is moment by moment transcendence of conditions. MY experience of logic is the same. The only difference between the two faculties of consciousness is that one is feeling sourced while the other is not. Your beacon of completeness in detachment, while obviously fulfilling and satisfying for you does not speak to my logic of what being enlightened means. As for your statement about 'big' feelings being an addiction, there is no way I accept that view of my experience. As for your declaring that deep feeling interferes with subtle mind, I also reject this as being true as one can stand in the UNMOVING deep of release and let logic have its say. I declare this post to be my evidence of my logic-feeling experience of finding MY ground of being.
You identify with a self-conception, which is just an idea and thus cannot pin you down. The identification with a particular self-conception limits the experience of love, it does not create it. While your self-conception may be the conception of a virtuous and noble self, it is not the transcendence of conditions you speak of — transcendence of conditions is to not identify consciousness with a particular idea.
Is not transcendence a name of something that happens to being or because of being or for being? What about Immanent, your moniker? Is it not a self-concept to use your words? Are these ideas your self-conception of a virtuous and noble self?

An idea cannot pin me down, no, but without my conscious understanding of what it means to me so I can live a conscious, self-directed life, I might as well be a tree.
Last edited by Pam Seeback on Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:love is 'set free'
non-attachment.
fullness.
for nothing in particular.
There is no such thing as a way of being that is name-free, that is attachment-free as you have proven in your words above. Can't remain full without naming it. Therefore, the idea of complete detachment is a delusion.

Consciousness is ontologically attached to itself, to its form-making function. It has no choice. Do it or cease being conscious.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Kunga »

I think what Dennis is saying...is that Love is just Love.
The nature of love is just love.
Real love does not need to attach itself, smother another.

It is free
A free spirit

only the ego needs to be loved and love (attachment/selfish)

love is just love (free alone, non-attachment)

if you truley love someone...let them go...
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Kunga »

When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams
as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.

http://www.katsandogz.com/onlove.html
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:
movingalways wrote:MY experience of love is moment by moment transcendence of conditions. MY experience of logic is the same. The only difference between the two faculties of consciousness is that one is feeling sourced while the other is not. Your beacon of completeness in detachment, while obviously fulfilling and satisfying for you does not speak to my logic of what being enlightened means. As for your statement about 'big' feelings being an addiction, there is no way I accept that view of my experience. As for your declaring that deep feeling interferes with subtle mind, I also reject this as being true as one can stand in the UNMOVING deep of release and let logic have its say. I declare this post to be my evidence of my logic-feeling experience of finding MY ground of being.
You identify with a self-conception, which is just an idea and thus cannot pin you down. The identification with a particular self-conception limits the experience of love, it does not create it. While your self-conception may be the conception of a virtuous and noble self, it is not the transcendence of conditions you speak of — transcendence of conditions is to not identify consciousness with a particular idea.
Is not transcendence a name of something that happens to being or because of being or for being? What about Immanent, your moniker? Is it not a self-concept to use your words? Are these ideas your self-conception of a virtuous and noble self?

An idea cannot pin me down, no, but without my conscious understanding of what it means to me so I can live a conscious, self-directed life, I might as well be a tree.
A concept is not a being, and a self-conception that is known to be conceptual is not mistaken for one.

The difference in direction is that the conceptual self that is mistaken for a being suffers and loves in a limited fashion, and is pulled this way and that by desire, while the conceptual self that is known truly (enlightened expression) loves unconditionally and does not suffer at all.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A mind is an environment.
love is an environmental possibility to paraphrase k.
lotus from mud.

no names, no pack drill.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Cahoot »

post moved
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by ardy »

Fox wrote:
movingalways wrote:Concepts for the sake of conversation and wisdom for the sake of positivity. Well, that's one brand of enlightenment, but thank god, not the only one.
There/ is only one-way to truth-and, that is Logic.

DQ
I am not sure that DQ knows his A from his E. Logic is fine and powerful and there are many great Logicians (ie Bertrand Russell) who have tried to grab the truth, but the reality of it always avoids them.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

TheImmanent: A concept is not a being, and a self-conception that is known to be conceptual is not mistaken for one.

The difference in direction is that the conceptual self that is mistaken for a being suffers and loves in a limited fashion, and is pulled this way and that by desire, while the conceptual self that is known truly (enlightened expression) loves unconditionally and does not suffer at all.
One who loves unconditionally is conscious of conditions, the former appearing because of the latter, dependent origination. Can't have one without the other. Which leads one who aspires to love unconditionally to question the actuality of a consciousness that 'does not suffer at all.' Do you not love because there is a reason to love?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Kunga wrote:I think what Dennis is saying...is that Love is just Love.
The nature of love is just love.
Real love does not need to attach itself, smother another.

It is free
A free spirit

only the ego needs to be loved and love (attachment/selfish)

love is just love (free alone, non-attachment)

if you truley love someone...let them go...
We fool ourselves when we believe that love is somehow different than all other concepts of consciousness, that it and it alone has found the way to break free of the law of dependent origination. Not only do we fool ourselves, but we set ourselves up to suffering the striving to attain to an ideal 'state' of consciousness that is impossible to realize, that of "perfect" or "unconditioned" or "nonattached" love. Dependent origination means just that, dependent origination. Attachment by default, attachment because of.

Love appears for a reason, just as does every expression of consciousness. Take away love's reason(s) for appearing and poof! love has no reason to come. Would the love poetry of Rumi or Gibran exist if it weren't for the conditions (reasons) that caused them to appear? If love truly were a stand-alone free spirit as you say, what would it use as its canvas for its revealing?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:A mind is an environment.
love is an environmental possibility to paraphrase k.
lotus from mud.

no names, no pack drill.
Love is a name. Lotus is a name. Mud is a name. The process of lotus growing and blooming because of mud = naming.

Naming = conceptual life/life of concepts.

The man who knows the reasons for his names knows who or what he is, the word made flesh.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Names and forms
generated

what to confer significance upon.

That which is conditional?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Names and forms
generated

what to confer significance upon.

That which is conditional?
Every name is a condition applied. There is no other way consciousness can know itself except to "confer significance upon", I am That I am. Which means there is always something (a condition) waiting in the wings to be named and to be tasted. Think of it this way, your consciousness or spirit is like the pulsing cursor at the top of a blank page. Until you "say your name", the page (your life) remains blank.

Two hundred years ago, the name and form (condition) "telegraph" had not yet appeared. Let there be light, the condition, the name "telegraph" appeared. "Telegraph" was used, tasted, and then, because the moving finger writes and having writ, moves on, let there be light, "telephone" appeared, and gradually, "telegraph" went the way of the dinosaurs. One can only assume that one day, "telephone" will be needed no more, and let there be light, ? will appear. It's the ? that is the food of spirit, the word waiting to be made flesh. Eat of my flesh, drink of my blood saith The Word, no need to panic about supply. :-)
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Passing parade.
So what Dionysius?



I am that I am!

Is that your fridge magnet?
Bumper bar sticker?
Gravestone inscription requested on the prepaid funeral plan?
(:
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Explain Dionysius. Or am I supposed to know IT by virtue of your having given IT that name?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Dennis Mahar »

a cork bobbing on an ocean of chardonnay so to speak.
(squeals of delight)

the poetry man.
responsive in that way.
that too is wonderful as measure if the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

Grateful for thinking and feeling.
experiential conditions.

anyway,
check the condition your condition is in.
do you have thoughts or do thoughts have you?
do you have feels or do feels have you?

swept along.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by TheImmanent »

movingalways wrote:
TheImmanent: A concept is not a being, and a self-conception that is known to be conceptual is not mistaken for one.

The difference in direction is that the conceptual self that is mistaken for a being suffers and loves in a limited fashion, and is pulled this way and that by desire, while the conceptual self that is known truly (enlightened expression) loves unconditionally and does not suffer at all.
One who loves unconditionally is conscious of conditions, the former appearing because of the latter, dependent origination. Can't have one without the other. Which leads one who aspires to love unconditionally to question the actuality of a consciousness that 'does not suffer at all.' Do you not love because there is a reason to love?
Awareness of concepts is not at issue, the self-identification with a particular concept is. With such self-identification, a particular concept is loved. With correct view, nothing is known as actually separate. Thus the reserved love of the ego is all-encompassing.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Giving up on enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis: do you have thoughts or do thoughts have you?
do you have feels or do feels have you?
Having thoughts and thinking are two different activities of consciousness. Someone who only has thoughts but doesn't think (analyze for tasting/knowing) or who feels but doesn't consider their feelings to me, is not living/being lived. In this post you speak of a cork bobbing on an ocean of chardonnay, but you failed to speak of the 'gripping' part that you spoke of in another post when you made the same reference. Without the grip, where's the knowing?

You say you're swept along, but if that were really true, you wouldn't be able to think at all.
Locked