Enlightenment

[Kunga]

Hey Diebert, why don't you put down in words, your statement of what Enlightenment is so we can pick your brain apart ? You are the dishonest one here, I only speak from my mind what I feel is true. I'm not trying to bamboozle anyone. If I sound incorect or ignorant, so be it...it is where I am right now on my journey.


Leyla...If I sound like I'm self-hynotized, I've thought about these thoughts so many times (and it all sounds logical to me !) But I seriously get sick of it all myself and want to chuck it all down the drain....I want to think of life as real, not unreal, and bascially I just live my life as it is real...it's only when I think seriously about how temporary and fleeting it is...the reality of it..then having to explain emptiness on these forms (again using logic). When you talk about (the stuff you talk about), it sounds warped to me too, but only because I've never studied the stuff you study, as I have no interest in the things that interest you. So it's just a matter of taste, I guess. I've been emerged in Buddhism (since 1995), so almost 20 years.

[Kunga]

Everything is an illusion because it does not inherently exist. Phenomena is interdependent. Doesn't exist inherently.
A tree or person didn't just pop into existence without a cause. But there is one thing that is causeless, it has no begining or end.
Some call it The Tao, some call it God. Some call it The Infinite. Some call it The Absolute...

In light of what you have said above, how would you interpret this saying of the Buddha regarding the highest attainment of the formless jhanas:

"Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure."

Emptiness is simply, like empty space. But it's ALL empty there, because nothing is percieved, because it is all formless.
This is THE FORMLESS jhana !

Being there are no forms to contend with, conceptual thinking ends, all is clear and pristinely empty of thoughts and meanings..



No, that's not right either. "There is this", (i don't know what THAT would be)

[Leyla Shen]

Hello, Kunga. (:

Logic is universally human, is it not? If we agree on this point, there should be no reason we can't understand each other's thinking given it's expressed logically, right?

In that spirit:

I want to think of life as real, not unreal, and bascially I just live my life as it is real...it's only when I think seriously about how temporary and fleeting it is...the reality of it..

Clarification, please. So, "real" to you means permanent?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I assume by a lurking "remarkable feature" of fuel you are referring to causes and conditions that shall forever allude our conscious understandings, Freud's "id"?

Close enough for me! And one reaons it "forever alludes" is their inherent ambiguity and shape-shifting. Like the faeries of old!

We are unbound in the sense of being without tether to any one actuality-of-a-thing, but we are bound by virtue of our Sonship to our rest, so that what is hidden will be revealed. In other words, we can be liberated of our search for THE truth, but we can never be liberated from the activity of truth. Those who wish for annihilation are doing just that, to literally be cut loose - permanently liberated - from existence and its ways.

Fair enough. That's why I'm often struggling with the question: should it even be said that a search for truth is something to be liberated from? Perhaps it's better to say that the quest for truth transforms into the activity of truth. God willing.

[Kunga]

Hello, Kunga. (:

<3

Logic is universally human, is it not? If we agree on this point, there should be no reason we can't understand each other's thinking given it's expressed logically, right?

In that spirit:

Yes, but sometimes ones logic only makes sense to oneself, not others :)

I want to think of life as real, not unreal, and bascially I just live my life as it is real...it's only when I think seriously about how temporary and fleeting it is...the reality of it..

Clarification, please. So, "real" to you means permanent?

I'm not very good at buddhism anymore....if I was a serious practioner I would be CONSTANTLY aware of each moment being unreal, an illusion. But I hate to be anything other than just my natural self, carefree, loving life as it is, (the unenlightened version).

No, real to me dosn't mean permanent...it just means it really exists as it is, and not an illusion (emptiness).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I only speak from my mind what I feel is true. I'm not trying to bamboozle anyone. If I sound incorect or ignorant, so be it...it is where I am right now on my journey.

But that's the whole reason I reply to you. Because you need to think first, not just "feel" what is true. This way one is able to create boundaries and structure to a mental life in the same way as someone would do with their personal life. They always relate: this is all about strength so that whatever you believe now is not overrun by the greater forces of life with the first little push. It needs foundation and it needs to be laid out for yourself by critical thought, if willing.

I've been emerged in Buddhism (since 1995), so almost 20 years.

You keep repeating that but it's a sign of weakness. Every serious thinker or seeker worth his salt is already on his path since childhood. Every one of them.

[Kunga]

you need to think first, not just "feel" what is true.

I do both ! I use my intuition and logic ! :) I know I'm not as experienced as you in critical thinking skills, but sometimes you are too critical (think too much ) ? Maybe you could try using a little intuition now and then ? :)

Anyways, it is very difficult for me to think without incorporating my feelings also. But i kick myself in the butt every time i let my feelings take rein over logic...it's a constant battle !!

Every serious thinker or seeker worth his salt is already on his path since childhood. Every one of them.

This is true...I remember as a small child being so serious about wanting to learn, and what is real, what is the truth. I was very disappointed when I didn't get a letter back from the tooth fairy.....i didn't even know how to write then, lol . The whole purpose of me even writing the tooth fairy was to see if she was real or not !

[Diebert van Rhijn]

,,, sometimes you are too critical (think too much ) ? Maybe you could try using a little intuition now and then ? :)

Well I've got 20 years of full experience with feelings and intuition already ;-) Do you think I always was like this? And after that 20 years of developing critical thought. And right now I think people need to think and reflect more than anything else. A lot what goes around as intuition is a form of fooling oneself with smoke and mirrors. Of not taking responsibility for unspoken thoughts and desires. My former dabbling with intuition, prayer, magic and love appear now shallow, selfish and only faint blueprints of what was to come. I know very well the lure of remaining in the waters.

Anyways, it is very difficult for me to think without incorporating my feelings also. But i kick myself in the butt every time i let my feelings take rein over logic...it's a constant battle !!

They are really the same "thing" in many respects. Thoughts are heavier though, more "connected" like spaghetti. That's why it all seems to move when you try to think. It gets easier when things start to get more disentangled.

[Leyla Shen]

Thoughts are heavier though, more "connected" like spaghetti.

LOL!

[Leyla Shen]

You mean, alphabet spaghetti???

That was fkn hilarious.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, but sometimes ones logic only makes sense to oneself, not others :)

But if logic is universal, how can it be particular at the same time? Surely you must be talking about something else. Maybe religion, or philosophy -- superstition, reason?

Do you use logic to differentiate between them, or something else?

K: I want to think of life as real, not unreal, and bascially I just live my life as it is real...it's only when I think seriously about how temporary and fleeting (1) it is...the reality of it..

L: Clarification, please. So, "real" to you means permanent?

K: I'm not very good at buddhism anymore....if I was a serious practioner I would be CONSTANTLY aware of each moment being unreal, an illusion (2). But I hate to be anything other than just my natural self, carefree, loving life as it is, (the unenlightened version).

No, real to me dosn't mean permanent...it just means it really exists as it is, and not an illusion (3) (emptiness).

But if (1) the reality of life is its temporary and fleeting nature, and (2) unreal means an illusion, and that (3) reality means to you just that [reality] really exists as it is and is not an illusion, how could we conclude anything other than your wanting to think of life as real and not unreal is the same as your wanting it to be permanent?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
In light of what you have said above, how would you interpret this saying of the Buddha regarding the highest attainment of the formless jhanas:

"Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure."

Emptiness is simply, like empty space. But it's ALL empty there, because nothing is percieved, because it is all formless.
This is THE FORMLESS jhana !

Being there are no forms to contend with, conceptual thinking ends, all is clear and pristinely empty of thoughts and meanings..



No, that's not right either. "There is this", (i don't know what THAT would be)

I do relate to having had this same vision. Like coming to a blank page and having nothing to write on its page that means something because you don't know the nature of the something you want to mean. If this sounds familiar to you, then I'll ask you this, which is related to what I asked ardy in his life after death thread, is there not omnipresent a desire to analyze the blank page? To bring its vision to life? Could it be that this urge to analyze is the nature of God or Life or Existence? And why call it real or unreal, just that it is you analyzing you.

The Buddha used concepts right up until his parinirvana, his passing from this world, did he not? Concepts that not everyone understood, not even some of his monks, which means that the Buddha was not omnipresent. Look carefully at his words: "Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure." Broccoli is empty of all things that are not broccoli, therefore, what remain is the actuality of broccoli. Go have some broccoli, why? Because you know it is not a candy bar. :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there

what is not-there is inherent existence.

There is this

emptiness.


geddit?

[TheImmanent]

A person is a straw man of ideas.

[Pam Seeback]

Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there

what is not-there is inherent existence.

There is this

emptiness.


geddit?

You cherry picked the Buddha's words. You ignored the most relevant part of that scripture in the context of my post to Kunga: "...And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure."

Actuality. Geddit?

[Dennis Mahar]

The Buddha said in 82,000 ways.
phenomena lacks inherent existence.

All that you write agrees with him completely.
You never say other than causes/conditions.
because this/because that.
emptiness cannot be refuted.

the buddha was just teaching how the mind works.
your mind works how he said it does.

got it?

with every utterance you say 'conditional/no absolute status.

[Dennis Mahar]

You see, reality is a seamless, undivided, continuous whole.
nothing is separate.
couldn't be otherwise.

like the Immanent says.
bliss.

[Pam Seeback]

The Buddha said in 82,000 ways.
phenomena lacks inherent existence.

All that you write agrees with him completely.
You never say other than causes/conditions.
because this/because that.
emptiness cannot be refuted.

the buddha was just teaching how the mind works.
your mind works how he said it does.

got it?

with every utterance you say 'conditional/no absolute status.

Dennis, you are not hearing my words if you believe that all I am saying is that there is no absolute status. I am saying just the opposite, that there is only absolute status. Dictionary.com, actual: to exist in act or fact. Or, to mean a thing is the thing expressed.

As for the Buddha teaching how the mind works, my understanding, which I believe was also the Buddha's understanding, is that mind is not separate from the absolute - actuality in emptiness. That it is the error of the mind that it invents a filter/thinker of relative things (the false appearance of the "mediator" self) that causes the mind to suffer.

As for:

You see, reality is a seamless, undivided, continuous whole.
nothing is separate.
couldn't be otherwise.

As I see it, this is an oversimplication of the nature of reality. Although it is true that ontologically nothing is separate or divided, it is not true that reality is a continuous whole, if by continuous you mean without distinction. The nature of wholeness is distinction, each distinct thing being whole of its meaning to the mind. This goes back to its absolute status. As for causes and conditions, I maintain they exist in the absolute or whole meaning of the thing, it's just that they remain unknown to the mind that declares meaning. Causality doesn't end when the mediator or imagined "in between guy" of self ends.

Perhaps you and I need to expand on what we both mean by bliss. For me, bliss is the feeling of wholeness, the expansive movement of spirit that loves everything for just being everything. One's entire being expands without end, distinctions dissolve, I love you is its MEANING. I see being in bliss as a necessary component for awakening to the experience of wholeness but since for me, bliss temporarily drops distinctions, I do not see it as the way to access the wholeness or actuality of things. An accessing of actuality that is the character or distinctiveness of (subjective-objective) consciousness.

[Pam Seeback]

And that the more logically one's meaning is expressed, the more likely it will be understood by the mind that expresses and the mind that hears: the revealing of the logos.

[Dennis Mahar]

take the advanced course,
empty is empty.

Spirit
mind
body
Spirit in all things

like Quinn says,
empty the mind of your junk-think.

absolute. relative, singularity. plurality, creation, destruction, totality etc merely conventional terms,
do not apply.
balls juggled in the air.
meaningmaker.

A person is a straw man of ideas.

[Pam Seeback]

Not arguing with you about the spirit in all things just that the spirit in all things produces bliss and only bliss.

[Dennis Mahar]

so what?
get a lawyer.
bliss.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You see, reality is a seamless, undivided, continuous whole.

It's not even that.

The moon lights up the finger in the reflection of the pond.

[Dennis Mahar]

The life of the mind gets around.
you can hear it in the corny songs on the radio.

[Leyla Shen]

The moon lights up the finger in the reflection of the pond.

Blah blah, fkn blah, Diebert!