GENIUS FORUMS

Dogmatism interprets dogma.
Insight interprets a deeper understanding into a subject.

Leyla Shen wrote:Life's just one big orgasm. Instant enlightenment!

look up Mahamudra !

Dennis Mahar wrote:They are empty of inherent existence.
that is their nature.

You could provide a conventional answer to a conventional question... (the middle way ?)

As Diebert pointed out Leyla's histrionics are the 'water cooler conversation'.

Dennis Mahar wrote:As Diebert pointed out Leyla's histrionics are the 'water cooler conversation'.

Geniuses have the ability to converse on any level.

Give us the rundown on Mahamudra OK?
your actual experience, not the advertisement OK?

Leyla Shen wrote:What is the difference between dogmatism and insight, Dennis?

Now, since it should be obvious that I am asking you to provide the meaning, that's the last time I will address you unless you do so.

Bingo (was his name-o). Meaning in action. Blind spot, or glaringly obvious?

Cahoot wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:What is the difference between dogmatism and insight, Dennis?

Now, since it should be obvious that I am asking you to provide the meaning, that's the last time I will address you unless you do so.

Bingo (was his name-o). Meaning in action. Blind spot, or glaringly obvious?

insight

K,

You could provide a conventional answer to a conventional question... (the middle way ?)

That is the middle way.
They exist. (conceptually contrived, derivative, grasping at the dream of inherent existence).
They are empty.

not of concern.

An insight: In the presence of vulnerability, the heart either opens, or closes. Surviving the irrevocable closures, without lying to yourself, makes change inevitable.

Breakthru's from breakdowns.
suchness.

Kunga wrote:There's nothing to get....like the orgasm....meaningless....empty.....yet full of potential...

It's true though, the eternal present is the "source" of all potential - and yet inaccessible. Described as "little ego death", the emptiness of orgasm is the closest thing an animal consciousness can get to the timeless and selfless. It functions by exhaustion though, as little death drive quencher and is essentially violence directed inwards. The waiting however is for people to venture with peace and skill into their own skies and not like some crazed firecracker.

How many times has any of us contributed a sex act detachedly and compassionately without wanting stuff.
as needed and required when speaking is useless.
A release for sufferer.
I don't get it as power play or lack of integrity when appropriate.
grist for the mill.
all we have is each other; mother's for each other.

I prefer the celibate single life.

Philosophers generally philosophise as if their sex lives did not exist, as if this vast continent of experience had no bearing whatsoever on their thinking.
We are 'sexuated'.
Language disappears, 'we'll talk about it later'.

Language disappears (embodied)
We'll talk about it later (encultured)

Dennis Mahar wrote:Philosophers generally philosophise as if their sex lives did not exist, as if this vast continent of experience had no bearing whatsoever on their thinking.

Sensuality yes but in terms of sexual desire there's only one chase but many directions. While there's only one target that does not exhaust itself. It's the essence of what a man is looking for in all his chases. And without the chase - a willing, a vision - where's the man left?

Dennis Mahar wrote:How many times has any of us contributed a sex act detachedly and compassionately without wanting stuff.

But that sounds more like the surrounding sensuality, like an immersion into the sensual and hormonal release. It's like talking about getting high. Take a drug like DMA and understand the sensual and well being connected with it all starts and ends in ones own attitude, some act of dropping stuff. Then the idea rises that needing anything or anyone for it seems like a tragic delusion.

I don't get it as power play or lack of integrity when appropriate. Grist for the mill. All we have is each other; mother's for each other.

The whole field lies open for various power plays, dependencies and hierarchical subtleties. This is how sex developed in the social bonding. Just declaring it free of all these games does not mean they do not operate fundamentally still even in the contemporary easy going erotic act. And is that still sex in socio-biological terms with all the wavering poles? Indeed much of it seems a return to our first years, the sensual world of wonder and delight. Although for some it's rather the pain and thrill.

We'll talk about it later (encultured)
That's what you are doing D.

there's no possibility of unencultured for it.

we live in a house of language.

Dennis Mahar wrote:we live in a house of language.

Only as long one considers that any dance of the body or its senses would be just another language and for the most past another "enculturing".

There's no way around it. Like a stage magician language can be made to briefly "disappear". But it's a trick, the audience is asked not to look behind the screens. And behind the screen, through the sign and the symbol, the non-verbal and the implicit a lot of talk is still going on. Honesty exists to the degree one becomes conscious of the conversations life is having.

When the conditioning to romance and love (need for other) in relation to sex is set aside, one is able to give full attention to the condition of arousal. There is much wisdom in "the rising up of consciousness as if to meet itself."

movingalways wrote: "the rising up of consciousness as if to meet itself."

And once you've embraced yourself,
there is no need for anyone else
your love is complete

but those that seek to maul you
have not yet discovered true love
nor can they love truely
as they are incomplete
without their
parasitic
attachment

Honesty exists to the degree one becomes conscious of the conversations life is having.

everything is encultured.
meaningmaker.

ineffable silence surrounds.

It's true though, the eternal present is the "source" of all potential - and yet inaccessible.

Pam and kunga,
you just said we are sexuated.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Pam and kunga,
you just said we are sexuated.

What are you talking about ?
I never heard of that word sexuated, before. I looked up the meaning, but I still can't wrap my brain around it !
Will you please explain what you are refering to more clearly?
Thank you

what you're sitting on.
situated.
embodied.
sexuated.

is it any different from grasshoppers, roofing nails, mountains, dvd players. self-cherishing?

you know, gets a global community of beings.
Equipment.
tool-being.

no true rank.

you provide the meaning.

movingalways wrote:When the conditioning to romance and love (need for other) in relation to sex is set aside, one is able to give full attention to the condition of arousal.

The romance and "love" where mainly metaphors for the arousal and the instinct guided by certain cultural vehicles for regulation. What did you accomplish with the setting aside? Less confusion perhaps? Or did the setting aside start with less confusion and uncertainty? Put everyone back in a larger group with uncertain power structures and love and need strikes again!

One shouldn't get attached to words as they aim to something outside themselves. If truth is not to be found in words neither falsity seems to be found in words. That doesn't mean that it can't be found elsewhere, even in the words themselves. While the word is not the thing it also isn't no thing.