Giving up on enlightenment

[Dennis Mahar]

You provide the meaning out of a conditioned meaning category set up as a conventional viewpoint.
There's nothin' to get.
nothin' to fix.

Your complaint is really against not the 'entity' you fix in your thinking.
it is against causality.
self-cherishing.

do the algebra.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, you hear but you do not listen.

[Dennis Mahar]

What else could you say.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What else could you say.

What about:

The futility of any "getting" that there's nothin' to get.
The futility of correcting people about that there's nothin' to fix.

And the apparent need to keep saying all these things! Liturgic or lethargic?

[ardy]

To come back to the OP giving up on enlightenment, there are several points raised by some of you that are weights to be carried by the seeker and very difficult to resolve.
DVR mentioned logical planning v prajna and the difficulties that this clash raises. This is very difficult, the seeker gains prajna as they get into 'it' but find the natural wisdom of prajna hard to bring into planning a house construction, for instance. Whilst hoping to live in the moment, they find themselves hoping the moment remains the moment, and does not change into more chatter from the mind. So it all becomes a balancing act that can change the world of the seeker in ways they often do not want.

Looking at literature there are many enlightened monks who built fantastic monasteries and statues.

There are many difficulties and in some ways you are taken into a parallel world where what was successful for you in the past is not so useful any more. This of course just builds up pressure which is then released as some form of a breakthrough or you pack it in and step back into the red dust.

Along the way to see the truth of things, it is true that 'it' (the questioning) changes the world of the seeker in ways they often don't want, but isn't that the point?

Do you really believe it is possible to pack 'it' in once you've had even one breakthrough? How do you forget such a thing?

I have seen lots do it. You never know how they cope and I'm sure they cannot forget it as it is too deep and personal. I walked away myself as I was no longer able to do the job I had done for 15 years. As you say it still has me at some level, certainly not even at the level of basic control over my mind anymore. It is frustrating but I still won't do what I should have done 20 years ago and gone to a monastery. Still the reality of it might have driven me off anyway.

It takes a strong and superior person to stay close to this stuff all through life. On the plus side the search has destroyed many people ie Jack Kerouac who's life spun out of control after he gave away his Buddhist searching. So the OP is right to be concerned it has taken many more than it delivered.

[Dennis Mahar]

there is no other-nature than 'lacks inherent existence'.
seeker, seeking, sought for is a projected games condition.
mental formation.
running lists of in order to's for the sake of.
do this, don't do that, tra la la
this ceases, that ceases, this arises, that arises.

pardon me boys, is this the chattanooga choo choo


dreaming a character and plot.
kills time.

meanwhile...

[Cahoot]

To come back to the OP giving up on enlightenment, there are several points raised by some of you that are weights to be carried by the seeker and very difficult to resolve.
DVR mentioned logical planning v prajna and the difficulties that this clash raises. This is very difficult, the seeker gains prajna as they get into 'it' but find the natural wisdom of prajna hard to bring into planning a house construction, for instance. Whilst hoping to live in the moment, they find themselves hoping the moment remains the moment, and does not change into more chatter from the mind. So it all becomes a balancing act that can change the world of the seeker in ways they often do not want.

Looking at literature there are many enlightened monks who built fantastic monasteries and statues.

There are many difficulties and in some ways you are taken into a parallel world where what was successful for you in the past is not so useful any more. This of course just builds up pressure which is then released as some form of a breakthrough or you pack it in and step back into the red dust.

Along the way to see the truth of things, it is true that 'it' (the questioning) changes the world of the seeker in ways they often don't want, but isn't that the point?

Do you really believe it is possible to pack 'it' in once you've had even one breakthrough? How do you forget such a thing?

I have seen lots do it. You never know how they cope and I'm sure they cannot forget it as it is too deep and personal. I walked away myself as I was no longer able to do the job I had done for 15 years. As you say it still has me at some level, certainly not even at the level of basic control over my mind anymore. It is frustrating but I still won't do what I should have done 20 years ago and gone to a monastery. Still the reality of it might have driven me off anyway.

It takes a strong and superior person to stay close to this stuff all through life. On the plus side the search has destroyed many people ie Jack Kerouac who's life spun out of control after he gave away his Buddhist searching. So the OP is right to be concerned it has taken many more than it delivered.

Ardy, the absorption of attention in awareness makes the object of awareness secondary, of passing interest. The objects of awareness change, the bliss is in the awareness itself. Whether the activity is physical labor, eating, hunger, walking, writing, chaos, or just sitting in a chair and doing nothing, it’s all the same in terms of attention being absorbed in awareness. Contrary to many of the theoretical conceptions, the nature of the bliss that flavors this absorption is a steady and joyful sobriety rather than intoxication, which makes intoxicants themselves superfluous, just as sex becomes superfluous to brahmacharya. That said, you are correct, in that the advaita (non-dual) approach recommends seven years of silence and contemplation to integrate into the world after realization, which I think is necessary in some form (though you find that it really was not), whether it's leaving the workaday grind or leaving all those you have known. When it comes to that you really don't have much choice in the matter.

[Dennis Mahar]

in order to for the sake of huh?

[Cahoot]

Yes, in order to integrate into phenomenal world for the sake of life, which essentially means balancing via natural forces between attention turning inward, and turning outward. Or, you could just fall into a ditch and let exposure take its course, which would be with the same absorption of attention, though this life is precious, and so what does happen is dictated by what must be done, which can be unexpected, such as in giving away your possessions.

[Dennis Mahar]

non-duality is a viewpoint, a philosophical abstraction.
it is enrolled in by the wise for practical purposes.
that being harmonious relations in the midst of others.

nothing exists absolutely.
non-duality as 'held meaning' works out OK.
You're OK. I'm OK.

in order to for the sake of.

if the perception is someone appeared to harm you there's no need to plunge into victimhood.
it is possible to 'love' stoopid.
turn the other cheek and smile blissfully.

[Cahoot]

Yes, awareness is not bound by conceptual meaning, as conceptual thought is another aspect that awareness knows, though concepts are integral to language, which is the medium of the present, i.e. communication.

Whatever happens must happen, even if it's smiling, or not. You may think you know what's going on, and within a limited scope you do, but you are a pawn to events unfolding beyond the scope of your incarnation's attachments or comprehension.

[Dennis Mahar]

nicely attuned Sir!
singin' in the rain.

[Dennis Mahar]

turn the other cheek and smile blissfully.

a totally thrilling experience!
emptiness/dependent arising is 100% positive.

[Cahoot]

Sometimes smiling cheeky Vishnu, sometimes Shiva backed by Kali with her bloody sword.

[Pam Seeback]

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.

[Dennis Mahar]

Come in spinner.

[Fox]

Objection: Your Honor!

T'was a Mimph

[Fox]

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

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: Come in spinner.

No need. You've got it covered:

non-duality is a viewpoint, a philosophical abstraction.
it is enrolled in by the wise for practical purposes.
that being harmonious relations in the midst of others.

nothing exists absolutely.
non-duality as 'held meaning' works out OK.
You're OK. I'm OK.

in order to for the sake of.

if the perception is someone appeared to harm you there's no need to plunge into victimhood.
it is possible to 'love' stoopid.
turn the other cheek and smile blissfully.

I'm OK. You're OK. I'm OK. You're OK. I'm OK. You're OK. Pass the bong of 'love'. Pass the pipe of abstraction. Be enrolled, not engaged. Poor Dennis, eating cotton candy when he could have the full menu.

[Dennis Mahar]

Get off the grog and get some sleep.
afflictive emotions are empty and meaningless.

[Pam Seeback]

Get off the grog and get some sleep.
afflictive emotions are empty and meaningless.

That's why you keep coming here, 3,651 posts later, you, one of the most prolific posters on the forum, 'cause its all meaningless.

[Pam Seeback]

When I speak of the full menu of love, I am not speaking of afflictive emotions, I am speaking of the total and absolute opening to or acceptance of the duality of life. This full menu of the necessity of blood and bliss cannot be eaten when one is interpreting life from the abstract, let's pretend everything is non-dual 'for the sake' of harmony realm. No, because what I speak of is not 'for the sake of 'harmony', it IS harmony: eyes bright and blazing "I am awake" kind of harmony. Do you understand the possibility of (it is you who speaks of possibilities) the metaphor of "God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself?"

I do appreciate your contrast of enlightenment to mine. You make good fuel for my love rocket.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's vital to experience emptiness directly.

In order to do so a gap must be created.

You have to know declaration.

I stand in emptiness is declaration.
I am that I am emptiness is declaration.
I love that I am in love with the Buddha is declaration.

That way I am detached and truly free.


I stand in that and experience completeness.
there's the philosophical abstract and the utterly unshakeable conviction.

the left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.
that way I'm responsible for it.
It's not just lip service.
It's fully alive in the mind.

it stands out like a beacon.
enrolment in a curriculum of education of high distinction.
a possibility for freedom to show up that actually shows up.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, you should write with your I using complete sentences more often. For the first time, I both saw your logic and felt the power of your beacon.

What I have come to realize is that where the logic of emptiness is unquestionably objective, the declarative feeling understanding of emptiness, its Word, is not. For example, where your subjectivity of emptiness is philosophical bliss, mine is suffering's release into love. As I see it, both declarations of feeling of the logic of emptiness are free of attachment. As you are convinced of the freedom of bliss that actually shows up, I am convinced of the freedom of love that actually shows up. For any one mind of God to convince another mind of God that "my taste of the freedom is the one and only right taste of freedom" is ludicrous.

A lesson I have had to learn the hard way. To quote the modern sage Homer Simpson, "duh!"

[Dennis Mahar]

The experience of freedom is love is set free of conditions.
The philosophical abstract 'emptiness' prior to a direct experience shows up as an inference.
The thing about alcohol is the addict is prone to 'big' feelings.
The subtle mind is drowned out.