Bliss

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Bliss

Post by Leyla Shen »

Because THE TRUTH is inconceivable and non-conceptual. It's more related to intuition.

How do you know that's the truth?

Can you explain how a strawberry tastes ?
Can you explain what an orgasm feels like ?

Will it do justice ?
Because that's what follows from your ostensibly truthful reply to my question (the limitations of which reply express what we call understanding).

All you suggest with that reply to the question here is that since truth is not only an ineffable experience but, in contradistinction to undesirable and/or painful experience, a pleasurable one, speaking of it is not only impossible but completely inadequate. Of course, I did have to assume that for you eating a strawberry is a desirable passive pleasure. You do enjoy strawberries, right?

When we combine the above with your earlier assertion (below), then we arrive at the above conclusion.
The purpose of Enlightenment is to realize THE TRUTH .
In order to realize THE TRUTH , you need to stop conceptual thinking.
Of course, you haven't for a moment stopped conceptualising either in this discussion about truth or in your experiences of orgasms and eating strawberries. Moreover, it's an explicit statement that neither has anything to do with reasoning (thinking). Thus it is that it comprises your claim to the truth of enlightenment itself as a self-satisfying experience of personal bliss.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

The ONLY reason I asked you, if you could explain how a strawberry tastes, or how an orgasm feels, was to point out how difficult
it would be to describe something like that accurately. You can't. It has to be tasted or experienced.

If you think (reason) your way to Enlightenment properly does that make you Enlightened ?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Bliss

Post by Leyla Shen »

An enlightened mind is the mind of truth. It's not a self-possession, Kunga. Any other permanent conception of enlightenment is egoistic (including yours) since it presumes a self experiencing a personal and permanent state of consciousness.
The ONLY reason I asked you, if you could explain how a strawberry tastes, or how an orgasm feels, was to point out how difficult
it would be to describe something like that accurately. You can't. It has to be tasted or experienced.
Your "reasoning" here is exactly the problem since it's not actually reasoning, it's what is meant by clinging to "conceptual thinking".
Between Suicides
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

Leyla Shen wrote:An enlightened mind is the mind of truth. It's not a self-possession,
Who's mind ?
When you say "An enlightened mind", are you referring to an individual ? Sounds contradictory... unless the enlightened mind is one mind.

Nevermind...I re-read this and now understand what you're implying (enlightened mind=mind of truth (not a self-possessing individual).
Leyla Shen wrote:Any other permanent conception of enlightenment is egoistic (including yours) since it presumes a self experiencing a personal and permanent state of consciousness.
How can there be an ego, if the self is an illusion ?

Leyla Shen wrote:Your "reasoning" here is exactly the problem since it's not actually reasoning, it's what is meant by clinging to "conceptual thinking".
Well, isn't logic, conceptual thinking ? It wasn't clinging to conceptual thinking, I was demonstrating through concepts, how it's impossible to understand fully (inconceivable), without experiencing .
Last edited by Kunga on Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Bliss

Post by Leyla Shen »

How can there be an ego, if the self is an illusion ?
The only self that's an illusion is the "ego-self".
Did you realize this yourself or did you read it somewhere ? Very good. It just didn't sound like something you'd say.
It doesn't sound like something who you think I am would say. I have no doubt that your conception of me is about as accurate as your conception of enlightenment.
Anyways, a mind of truth sees everything as equal. Mirror/Mirror


No, it doesn't. It's not some "peace loving" passive-aggressive hippy "socialist" wandering around in a fog of dope.

A mind of truth sees things as they are, not as reflection.
Well, isn't logic, conceptual thinking ?
It's your phrase. You do the work, find the truth, and get yourself out the mess.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

Leyla Shen wrote: I have no doubt that your conception of me is about as accurate as your conception of enlightenment.
My conception of you is that you are intelligent & feisty. LOL
Leyla Shen wrote: a mind of truth sees everything as equal. Mirror/Mirror


No, it doesn't. It's not some "peace loving" passive-aggressive hippy "socialist" wandering around in a fog of dope.

A mind of truth sees things as they are, not as reflection.
Things as they are (conventional) , and also things as (ultimate truth).
Form and emptiness.

Ultimately everything is empty. So everything is equally empty.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:They are different aspects of the Tao. You are the thinking aspect.

Believe it or not, this simple truth of the Tao that does not conceptualize and the Tao that does conceptualize is the light bulb moment.

This simple truth of the two aspects of the Tao is easy to understand but not easy to accept. Why? Because the self wants to be more than "just" the thinking will of the Tao. The self wants more, always more...
Great stuff Pam. "It" wants more and loves to downplay even the most natural, gently structured type of thought as being some kind of hindrance to the desired state. It's a strange opposition to some "other self" - perhaps more like an allergic reaction as I'm sure many people are pretty tired of chasing down fruitless lines of thought with all its worries, loops and alienation. While it's understandable to distrust the ability of the mind to deceive (but that would be all of it and not just reasoning though) -- there's still available this great ability of the mind to reason proportionally, naturally, unforced and seemingly spontaneous, like undisturbed breathing, light or heavy it may be.
I agree that the mind has the ability to reason as you say, like undisturbed breathing, which is why those who promote reasoning via misogyny are doing reasoning a great disservice. Misogyny, by definition, is hatred for women. Is there a stronger emotion of attachment than hatred? I can think of none. Wise misogyny is a contradiction in terms and is only valuable (for those who need it) in the beginning stages of awakening for the purposes of developing a strong will. The value of reasoning over feeling to understand and communicate is self-evident to those who desire understanding and communication.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:Misogyny, by definition, is hatred for women. Is there a stronger emotion of attachment than hatred? I can think of none. Wise misogyny is a contradiction in terms and is only valuable (for those who need it) in the beginning stages of awakening for the purposes of developing a strong will. The value of reasoning over feeling to understand and communicate is self-evident to those who desire understanding and communication.
Personally I haven't seen much misogyny at this forum. It's perhaps tempting to project as strong feeling or frustration on what appears to be some strong wording or voiced opposition to what others are promoting with every breath they take. But I agree that the term "wise misogyny" appears as contradiction. Who introduced or used it anyway? I think it was only Kelly Jones and she defines it as "a reasoned rejection of feminine psychology" while rejecting the meaning of any emotional hatred of women. Perhaps you wiser women should discuss the usage of the terms amongst each other?

That being said, there's just no better way to explore any problems with thinking and emotion (with the modern context this all has to happen in) than by examining the role and development of the genders, sexual dynamics and emotionality. The confusion amongst men on these topics is immense and I can understand the focus needs to be on it at times. But it's just an introduction, underneath all these modern problems we still have the older problem of self, of seduction and deception.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Bliss

Post by Leyla Shen »

My conception of you is that you are intelligent & feisty. LOL
Aw, aren't you just the personification of wit, dear!

And the point is, that's about as valuable and/or meaningful as your conception of truth -- "reflection".

Like I said, little to do with me.
Things as they are (conventional) , and also things as (ultimate truth).
Form and emptiness.

Ultimately everything is empty. So everything is equally empty.
There's a difference between asserting that the mind of truth sees everything as equal, as you did, and the truth that everything is equally empty. Do you lack all capacity for intellectual integrity, or are you really that stupefied despite your (claim to) decades of "studying" buddhism? Emptiness is not a statement about equality, it's the truth (remember the meaning of that word?) of impermanence. To imply either by omission or by commission that there is one set of things which exist ultimately and another which exist conventionally is so idiotic, Kunga, it beggars belief.
Between Suicides
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:Misogyny, by definition, is hatred for women. Is there a stronger emotion of attachment than hatred? I can think of none. Wise misogyny is a contradiction in terms and is only valuable (for those who need it) in the beginning stages of awakening for the purposes of developing a strong will. The value of reasoning over feeling to understand and communicate is self-evident to those who desire understanding and communication.
Personally I haven't seen much misogyny at this forum. It's perhaps tempting to project as strong feeling or frustration on what appears to be some strong wording or voiced opposition to what others are promoting with every breath they take. But I agree that the term "wise misogyny" appears as contradiction. Who introduced or used it anyway? I think it was only Kelly Jones and she defines it as "a reasoned rejection of feminine psychology" while rejecting the meaning of any emotional hatred of women. Perhaps you wiser women should discuss the usage of the terms amongst each other?

That being said, there's just no better way to explore any problems with thinking and emotion (with the modern context this all has to happen in) than by examining the role and development of the genders, sexual dynamics and emotionality. The confusion amongst men on these topics is immense and I can understand the focus needs to be on it at times. But it's just an introduction, underneath all these modern problems we still have the older problem of self, of seduction and deception.
I wasn't speaking about this forum in its current state nor am I disagreeing with what you say about the necessity of discussing the roles and development of the genders, sexual dynamics and emotionality. What happened was that before I responded to you I had been reading the thread on Kelly Jone's "Men of the Infinite" forum re the mandatory thinking test requirements for biological females who want to join and my "is she kidding?" reaction spilled over into my response to you. It's not so much the idea of testing members that seemed unreasoned to me, but that she restricts this requirement to biological females.

Given the experience on this forum it seems to me as if there are as many biological males with emotional attachment issues as there are biological females. My reasoned conclusion is that Kelly realized that there are few (if any) biological makes that would consider even for a moment taking her thinking tests and that if she had made a thinking test a universal requirement, she'd be the sole poster at her forum. I'll start a thread here before the end of the week on the subject and see what develops and since I won't be taking Kelly's thinking tests, perhaps Kelly will come over to Genius for a bit and provide her reasoned argument for not making thinking tests a universal requirement.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

Leyla Shen wrote:My conception of you is that you are intelligent & feisty. LOL


Aw, aren't you just the personification of wit, dear!

And the point is, that's about as valuable and/or meaningful as your conception of truth -- "reflection".

Like I said, little to do with me.
So... you aren't intelligent or feisty ?
Leyla Shen wrote:Emptiness is not a statement about equality, it's the truth (remember the meaning of that word?) of impermanence.
The logical deduction of something that is empty (lacking inherent existence), is that it would also be impermanent. How could anything that is empty of inherent existence be permanent ?
Leyla Shen wrote:To imply either by omission or by commission that there is one set of things which exist ultimately and another which exist conventionally is so idiotic,
Conventional, is seeing a chair as a chair, without breaking down all the components of how that chair came into existence.
Ultimate, is seeing a chair as empty of inherent existence, like all phenomena.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Bliss

Post by Cahoot »

The form of chair manifests from timeless and formless infinite potentiality according to dependent conditions, one of which is recognition. Formless chair never was and ever is, the form of chair is merely a transitory representation.

Renegade - Kings of Convenience (Subtitulado)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuET1QjC7QY

*

Speaking of thinking tests, we may live to see computers pass themselves off as philosophers.

Turing Test: Computer Program Convinces Judges It's Human
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/t ... an-n125786
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Please Cahoot, no music or music video's in these discussions. It's already hard enough to think for most of us. And for science news I happen to just have started a thread for that need, even before I checked in here. Many claims on passing the Turing test I've seen before though. And many will follow. It's still interesting for sure but I wonder if it has something to do with our definition on what's constitutes "human" or "the appearance of a human". How does it show up, what do we still require for that status?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Bliss

Post by Cahoot »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Please Cahoot, no music or music video's in these discussions. It's already hard enough to think for most of us. And for science news I happen to just have started a thread for that need, even before I checked in here. Many claims on passing the Turing test I've seen before though. And many will follow. It's still interesting for sure but I wonder if it has something to do with our definition on what's constitutes "human" or "the appearance of a human". How does it show up, what do we still require for that status?
Perhaps, via the capacity to integrate appreciation of beauty, which includes music appreciation, into analytical associations via a synthesis of thought and emotion.

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

Kunga wrote:Things as they are (conventional) , and also things as (ultimate truth).
Leyla Shen wrote: To imply either by omission or by commission that there is one set of things which exist ultimately and another which exist conventionally is so idiotic, Kunga, it beggars belief.

OMG...now I see what you're talking about. My statement saying THINGS (conventional) & THINGS (ultimate) LOL
I didn't mean that there are things (separate) conventional and things ultimate...I meant how things are looked at (perspective).
When you see things conventionally, the chair is just a chair.
When you see things deeper than that (ultimately), you see it as something not as solid and real , you can break it down into atoms, see it's impermanence, see how empty of real existence (permanence).
Sorry for the misunderstanding Leyla, yeah...that would be idiotic !!! LOL

Sometimes when we communicate we can see a concept clearly in our our heads, but fail to express it clearly.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:Perhaps, via the capacity to integrate appreciation of beauty, which includes music appreciation, into analytical associations via a synthesis of thought and emotion.
Everyone likes music. No need to elevate this to some vehicle of deeper capacity. Even I have Kings of Convenience somewhere in my collection. But it's a bit pedestrian stuff, isn't it? There's more depth in just seeing and hearing some dead leafs going by, a bit like how cows would fill their days. But you ain't posting video's of dead leafs either. It's your personal experience you're transferring here. Void of any connective meaning.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is al ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Sentimentalism in a nut shell. It's enough to propel blindly through life, I suppose. But lets not put lipstick on a pig and call it transcendence please.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Bliss

Post by Cahoot »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Perhaps, via the capacity to integrate appreciation of beauty, which includes music appreciation, into analytical associations via a synthesis of thought and emotion.
Everyone likes music. No need to elevate this to some vehicle of deeper capacity. Even I have Kings of Convenience somewhere in my collection. But it's a bit pedestrian stuff, isn't it? There's more depth in just seeing and hearing some dead leafs going by, a bit like how cows would fill their days. But you ain't posting video's of dead leafs either. It's your personal experience you're transferring here. Void of any connective meaning.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is al ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Sentimentalism in a nut shell. It's enough to propel blindly through life, I suppose. But lets not put lipstick on a pig and call it transcendence please.
Continuing with your own inquiry from which you quickly stray ... likewise, despite extensive files, a calculating machine may be distinguished from the human by inherent limitations that permit only paddling in the shallows of complexity, and that restrict from diving into the depths of simple truth.

Perhaps, like the computer that fooled the judges in the Turing test, a computer will never be able to convince a human being that it is anything more than an argumentative adolescent. ;)

*


Connectives

moments after
predawn silence
first touch of sun
delicate red leaves
the last resistors
to wind and the time
rigid and wrapped in frost weight
attachments weak, or gone
fall to earth
sighing and clattering
showers of brittle snowflakes

-Cahoot
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Bliss

Post by Leyla Shen »

Hi, Kunga.
When you see things deeper than [conventionally, viz: 'see' that "the chair is just a chair"] (ultimately), you see it as something not as solid and real , you can break it down into atoms, see it's impermanence, see how empty of real existence (permanence).


How is the above supported by your assertion that:
The purpose of Enlightenment is to realize THE TRUTH .
In order to realize THE TRUTH , you need to stop conceptual thinking.
?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

That's a start.

If Enlightenment was that simple (realizing emptiness, through conceptual reasoning)...I'd be Enlightened by now. I still have a long ways to go.
Do you think logic is the key to figuring out the truth ? How about compassion. How about hatred. How about greed. Do you think just using logic will get you to heaven ? (Just an example).

Do you think a rapist and murderer will still be raping and murdering after he realizes THE TRUTH ?


So what does this have to do with my statement on stopping conceptual thinking in order to realize THE TRUTH ?
Because logic can only get you so far. Logic is self-identity. You gotta let go of all you think you know. Empty the cup.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Bliss

Post by TheImmanent »

The limited perspective is no obstacle, its way of designating a strawman of ideas as its being is. Were the limited perspective to be known as such, there would be enlightenment. The perspective would be empty of a person, i.e., ego.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Bliss

Post by Kunga »

Kunga wrote:
You gotta let go of all you think you know. Empty the cup.
And now I will swallow my own words....
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Bliss

Post by TheImmanent »

Who lets go? A person is a blind spot. A person is not someone who may lack insight, the existence of person is a lack of insight. In a perspective, considered over time, insights may accumulate so that the person disappears. The one who would let go and that which would be let go are both gone.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by jupiviv »

TheImmanent wrote:A person is a blind spot. A person is not someone who may lack insight, the existence of person is a lack of insight.
So one can neither be a person, nor a person lacking insight, in order to have insight. Did I read that right?
The one who would let go and that which would be let go are both gone.

Does that happen before or after the person accumulates the insight into the going away of the subject and object of letting go?
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Bliss

Post by TheImmanent »

In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Bliss

Post by Pam Seeback »

Kunga: Do you think logic is the key to figuring out the truth ? How about compassion. How about hatred. How about greed. Do you think just using logic will get you to heaven ? (Just an example).
Only logic can bring one to the truth of pure sensory awareness (the discovery that 'you' are the universe observing 'itself') because it is free of the clinging aspect of emotions such compassion, greed and hatred. Where clinging exists, truth remains hidden. If one remains in the understanding that logic provides for them, they understand heaven.
Locked