GENIUS FORUMS

TheImmanent wrote: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.

Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?

Leyla Shen wrote:

TheImmanent wrote: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.

Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?

A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.

TheImmanent wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

TheImmanent wrote: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.

Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?

A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.

If existing in a "literal" sense means existing inherently then nothing exists in a literal sense. For that matter, nothing doesn't exist in a literal sense either.

jupiviv wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

TheImmanent wrote: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.

Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?

A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.

If existing in a "literal" sense means existing inherently then nothing exists in a literal sense. For that matter, nothing doesn't exist in a literal sense either.

Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.

A perspective is literally the axiom which dictates a person's interaction with his environment. So a perspective is not literally a perspective for the same reason which I assume you have used to prove that a person is not literally a person., i.e, it is a word that can be defined with more words.

jupiviv wrote:A perspective is literally the axiom which dictates a person's interaction with his environment.

A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.

So a perspective is not literally a perspective for the same reason which I assume you have used to prove that a person is not literally a person., i.e, it is a word that can be defined with more words.

A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.

When the truth is spoken truth is all that exists. When the truth is spoken, thoughts of being a person or an ego or a spirit or a soul do not exist. Therefore, when one speaks the truth, they are the truth and nothing but the truth, they are the light of the world.

movingalways wrote:When the truth is spoken truth is all that exists. When the truth is spoken, thoughts of being a person or an ego or a spirit or a soul do not exist. Therefore, when one speaks the truth, they are the truth and nothing but the truth, they are the light of the world.

That is correct.

Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.

Not by my definition. A person is a human being, and human being is a perspective.

TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.

An axiom could be false. The claim of separate existence is not sufficient to render an idea false.

A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.

The main purpose of enlightenment is to clarify the idea of the ego. To the extent such an idea is deluded, it will disappear with understanding.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.

Not by my definition. A person is a human being, and human being is a perspective.

Ego, species, view. Words can be changed and yet the distinctions remain.

jupiviv wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.

An axiom could be false. The claim of separate existence is not sufficient to render an idea false.

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.

The main purpose of enlightenment is to clarify the idea of the ego. To the extent such an idea is deluded, it will disappear with understanding.

The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.

TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion.

It's no more necessary than a person. These ideas are both indicators of different experiences/thoughts/opinions in a discussion, and can be deluded or wise ideas upon the person using them.

The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

The very fact that things are interconnected proves that they are separate. Connection assumes separation.

You are attached to a particular terminology regarding enlightenment, which prevents you from thinking more flexibly. Unfortunately, this is all too common among members on this forum.

The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.

Enlightenment always begins as an egotistic quest for happiness, but the ego gradually loses that desire along with its delusions.

jupiviv wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion.

It's no more necessary than a person. These ideas are both indicators of different experiences/thoughts/opinions in a discussion, and can be deluded or wise ideas upon the person using them.

Enlightened discussion, without ego-presence, is possible albeit rare in the world. Perspectives can exchange information, even if they are aware of the nature of reality.

The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

The very fact that things are interconnected proves that they are separate. Connection assumes separation.

The idea of a separate existence is the idea of being self-existent, i.e., a thing-in-itself. Interconnection demonstrates the opposite; mutual dependency of definition.

You are attached to a particular terminology regarding enlightenment, which prevents you from thinking more flexibly. Unfortunately, this is all too common among members on this forum.

That there is common.

The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.

Enlightenment always begins as an egotistic quest for happiness, but the ego gradually loses that desire along with its delusions.

Which constitutes the ego.

Leyla Shen wrote:

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.

Yes it is. A person is not actually a self.

Kunga wrote:Buddhas Bliss was permanent. The bliss I have experienced is impermanent. Is it the same bliss, only the quality and quantity of it relative to the proximity to Enlightenment ?

The quality of it is inversely proportionate to the proximity to "Enlightenment". The stronger the suffering, the stronger the bliss that follows it. The quantities are roughly equal regardless of proximity.

If the Buddha never suffers, perhaps he should call his state "contentment" instead of "bliss", because it can't be acutely enjoyable in the way that the bliss of one who suffers is enjoyable.

This raises the question: why try to eliminate suffering at all? It's a good question. It's innate that we avoid suffering to enhance our survival. It's an extremely selfish drive. But on the flip side, we ought to also value our suffering if we value ourselves and what we've grown into. We shouldn't derive others of the chance we had. Suffering and challenges are required for growth and learning. In a world without suffering, we'd all have about the mentality of little children.

And how about if we could experience bliss without suffering? What if we could accomplish it via drugs or biological/genetic engineering? Would it be meaningful? In my opinion, no. I think bliss a beautiful thing as a reward for doing the right thing or overcoming a challenge, but would find life meaningless without such challenges and problems.

RZoo wrote:

Kunga wrote:Buddhas Bliss was permanent. The bliss I have experienced is impermanent. Is it the same bliss, only the quality and quantity of it relative to the proximity to Enlightenment ?

The quality of it is inversely proportionate to the proximity to "Enlightenment". The stronger the suffering, the stronger the bliss that follows it. The quantities are roughly equal regardless of proximity.

If the Buddha never suffers, perhaps he should call his state "contentment" instead of "bliss", because it can't be acutely enjoyable in the way that the bliss of one who suffers is enjoyable.

Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.

But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.

TheImmanent wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.

Yes it is. A person is not actually a self.

Lol

I definitely come here for the insights, even when such insights do tend to reveal themselves in a form reminiscent of Monty Python's Flying Circus!

TheImmanent wrote:Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.

But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.

Nonsense. The "positive" and the "negative" are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist except in relation to the other. At best, enlightenment can achieve a dilution of all emotions, a sort of contentment or zombie-like state where neither bliss nor pain is felt due to emotional detachment. More likely, it can achieve a feeling of moral superiority - "I am enlightened, I am a genius, I am pursuing a worthy cause in my life, etc!" This [delusion] could be the source of your bliss, but is about on par with (not better than) any other conviction/delusion, say, belief that God will grant you eternal happiness in the future, for instance, or belief that you have the moral right or obligation to murder people for fun.

RZoo wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.

But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.

Nonsense. The "positive" and the "negative" are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist except in relation to the other.

The negative is merely the absence of the positive.

At best, enlightenment can achieve a dilution of all emotions, a sort of contentment or zombie-like state where neither bliss nor pain is felt due to emotional detachment. More likely, it can achieve a feeling of moral superiority - "I am enlightened, I am a genius, I am pursuing a worthy cause in my life, etc!" This [delusion] could be the source of your bliss, but is about on par with (not better than) any other conviction/delusion, say, belief that God will grant you eternal happiness in the future, for instance, or belief that you have the moral right or obligation to murder people for fun.

In the absence of enlightenment.

TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.

WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!

That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)

RZoo wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.

WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!

That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)

You're more fortunate than you suspect.

TheImmanent wrote:

RZoo wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.

WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!

That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)

You're more fortunate than you suspect.

Good news from afar may bring you a welcome visitor.

Nihilism is an ironic demonstration of a premise.