The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I no longer believe there can be a point to philosophy without the context of a real and ongoing action based on purpose. Whether the meaning in whatever purpose that is chosen is temporary or not, to me it is a necessity, any philosophy or discussion without that context seems to me to be the ramblings of boredom or a mad man trapped in a box with only a wall to talk to.

The above is essentially a criticism toward people on this forum, since even if you disagree with that assessment, I'd say that any other view was just a lazy sort of ignorance. If a person admits to being without some ambition or another, then he is to be ignored, since he does not even intend to offer something of worth.

So does this apply to you? Or is there a hidden action/purpose/ambition in your life you don't reveal? It could be something as simple as traveling, or even disciplining ones mind to eradicate most suffering, whatever it is doesn't matter for now, but for me that this context exists and is clear should be the basis of all discussion.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:So does this apply to you? Or is there a hidden action/purpose/ambition in your life you don't reveal? It could be something as simple as traveling or even disciplining ones mind to eradicate most suffering, whatever it is doesn't matter for now, but for me that this context exists and is clear to oneself should be the basis of all discussion.
Which is of course also a way to look at all human development: richness, abundance, exhilarating push beyond but at the same time this sickening question mark, this suicidal, vengeful, jealous shame filled backlash which appears to challenge its own existence, desiring its own death. And in this shadow you can see often art and deeper thought being born. Like an "after thought" or when other, more purposeful, driven things are said and done, another kind of spark follows. But then, philosophy as decadence?

Perhaps philosophy doesn't belong to any realm of purpose at all. It's essentially alway plain effect of something else, mostly bloody and painful things which themselves might have purpose in terms of power or survival. Or not. Of course all ideas have consequences but how often are they intended or predictable?

The will to power might be blind, more so than justice but philosophy shows up more often as dumb, deaf and blind. It's then perhaps more about stopping to talk, stopping to hear and stopping to see. If someone looks for purpose, he should look for ideology, medication, mind training or just relax and live the purposes given through each and every context. It's just a matter of stopping resisting those and all is set.

Aha! But now we have resistance showing up. Where does this resistance comes from, this rebellion against god, against the past and all given purposes?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Aha! But now we have resistance showing up. Where does this resistance comes from, this rebellion against god, against the past and all given purposes?
The question of the presence of resistance or stress is the ultimate question demanding the ultimate answer. Why? Because anyone who has realized the truth of a nondual God/existence cannot logically support the appearance of resistance or stress. God resisting God? God being stressed by God? An insane thought, plain and simple.

Starting with this fundamental logical realization of the insanity that is resistance, one has the potential to discover its cause and to work toward its permanent uprooting. Is the way of being released of the delusion of resistance/stress an example of the presence of action, purpose and ambition? Since the presence of action, purpose and ambition causes the arousal of stress, no. Is the hope to be released from stress a goal? Yes.

Therefore, having the goal of being released from stress is necessary if discussion of release is desired.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jufa »

Everything in the universe has not only a movement, design, and potential, but also context of imagery. Philosophy is no different than any other expression, for it, as all elements are of thinking, analysis, plan, and thought manifestation which covers the entire spectrum of the necessity to express. One thing resistance cannot do, it cannot alter a context of action, purpose, and ambition when the reason for any of these subject have no cause which can be found in the human mind.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Russell Parr »

Philosophy is the pursuit of the highest possible consistency of knowledge.

It so happens that a result of this pursuit is a growing intimacy with knowledge of meaninglessness and purposelessness, which can seem to be a contradiction, or a paradox, but is nonetheless a key component. Purposelessness becomes apparent in consideration of the fact that consciousness, i.e., the act of observing, judging, comparing, remembering, conjuring, etc., is always changing. Consciousness is ever-changing and fleeting, and thus any "purpose" discovered or conjured up is ever-changing and fleeting.

However, it remains that the conjuring of purpose is an inevitable property of consciousness. In a sense, purpose and consciousness are the same; there is no one without the other. Consciousness naturally manifests purpose, while the act of clinging to purpose, that is, the resistance towards change, is the hallmark property of the ego. In result, the ego destroys further and new purpose, and thus consciousness.

Non-clinging, or non-attachment, is the art of becoming one with the flow of nature. This is where consistency comes in. The consistency of the philosopher is in the remembrance of the ever-changing aspect of reality. The ego thrives under the impression that consistency lies in clinging to a particular purpose, but this is of course ignorant of the reality of change.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Bobo »

People will to discuss if they think you have something they desire, make it personal. No, the basis of discussion must be disinterested, otherwise keep with the language everybody talks it only matters how much.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: at the same time this sickening question mark, this suicidal, vengeful, jealous shame filled backlash which appears to challenge its own existence, desiring its own death.
Not really sure where this is coming from or what you mean here.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Perhaps philosophy doesn't belong to any realm of purpose at all. It's essentially alway plain effect of something else, mostly bloody and painful things which themselves might have purpose in terms of power or survival. Or not. Of course all ideas have consequences but how often are they intended or predictable?
Philosophy belongs to you. Yet it is rarely spoken of in that way, but rather philosophers attempt to speak of it from some objective viewpoint, as some non-personal thing. That attitude is essentially what I'm criticizing, that extremely prevalent tendency to attempt to be impersonal, as I mentioned before, a sort of exaggerated self-denial. Yet truthfully there's nothing impersonal in reality for you.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: If someone looks for purpose, he should look for ideology, medication, mind training or just relax and live the purposes given through each and every context. It's just a matter of stopping resisting those and all is set. Aha! But now we have resistance showing up. Where does this resistance comes from, this rebellion against god, against the past and all given purposes?
In the conventional sense, we have to choose our own purpose. Perhaps the resistance is not inevitable, but only due to a failure to live rightly, perhaps due to unfulfilled potential and thus dissatisfaction. A dissatisfaction caused by a lack of realized potential for freedom, as almost everyone either creates or accepts one cage or another, this resistance is to be expected.
movingalways wrote:Since the presence of action, purpose and ambition causes the arousal of stress, no.
I disagree with that as a blanket statement, perhaps you only say so because it is a true relation most of the time? You seem to be idealistically (yet unrealistically) implying that there could be a cessation of action, purpose, and ambition on some absolute level? Which would require you to be a master over reality.

As I see it, when there is no alignment with, or acceptance of, a decided purpose, action, or ambition, then restlessness, dissatisfaction, or resistance are inevitable. Which is an opposite view to your seemingly literal interpretation of a cessation of desire as an end to suffering. At best there is only ever a temporary pause to desire or ambition, is that not true in your experience? Or do you just believe you haven't reached that "heaven to come" of cessation yet?
Russell wrote:with knowledge of meaninglessness and purposelessness
Meaninglessness essentially refers to the impermanence of meaning, not the denial of it. Meaning is still very real and existing, whether it is fleeting or not, as you said, it's that lack of 'remembrance' or ignorance of impermanence which allows the thriving of egoistic clinging.


This is how I see the various points made, and a concluding balance between them:
Purpose, action, ambition(or desire) continues to arise with consciousness. I would say this is the very nature of endless becoming. (I see the interpretation that one should strive for the end of desire as a misapprehension, instead the meaning of the teaching of the cessation of desire is or should be regarding only clinging, which is suffering caused by futile opposition against transience. Not desire itself as being inseparable from suffering.)
All is fleeting, and one should live in 'remembrance' of impermanence, so as to not cause all that resistance, clinging, stress.
To me restlessness, or dissatisfaction, are also forms of suffering (which will still remain even if one were to go through radical abandonment in the attempt to be rid of desire) and are inevitable when one denies or does not act in accordance with the personal nature of the becoming of purpose/desire. Which I think is best focused on the pursuit of a fully realized potential for freedom.

As I see it, in the conventional sense, each person is like a god(or a being having great potential) who has created his own bondage and is restless, depressed, or stressed, and is desiring freedom from a cage built of his own fear, envy, anger, distrust, loneliness, resentment, doubt, ignorance and prejudices.

"The door is open." And that door, to me, is to act in accordance with one's conventional nature (and what else sums up a being's nature but his desires?) while keeping in recognition of conventional wisdoms and the the fundamental impermanence of everything, that recognition which is essentially the freedom of non-attachment to the world and worldliness. Thus one can enjoy and become with nothing to lose.

Now to get to the personal part, for any philosophy is incomplete without it:
I always think now, when posting, what's in it for me? I may as well delete my post as I have others. I don't gain anything from this as it is.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways wrote:
Since the presence of action, purpose and ambition causes the arousal of stress, no.
SeekerofWisdom wrote: I disagree with that as a blanket statement, perhaps you only say so because it is a true relation most of the time? You seem to be idealistically (yet unrealistically) implying that there could be a cessation of action, purpose, and ambition on some absolute level? Which would require you to be a master over reality.

As I see it, when there is no alignment with, or acceptance of, a decided purpose, action, or ambition, then restlessness, dissatisfaction, or resistance are inevitable. Which is an opposite view to your seemingly literal interpretation of a cessation of desire as an end to suffering. At best there is only ever a temporary pause to desire or ambition, is that not true in your experience? Or do you just believe you haven't reached that "heaven to come" of cessation yet?
The cessation of desire is the only way to absolute clarity of reality, which is heaven already here waiting to be realized, not heaven yet to come. My reasoning: why is Mind or Heaven ignorantly desiring that which it already is, everything of Earth?

Which means the goal of realizing absolute clarity of reality - what is - is not one of idealism but of realism. It also means that the goal of realizing absolute clarity of reality is not one of mastery over reality but one of being of reality, the Master.

Desire for mastery is the epitome expression of idealism/belief in self (suffering). Which of my personal experience is the very experience that inspires the quest to be released from the fire of its (seemingly) endless becoming.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

What exactly do you mean when you say the word desire? Are you using it in some other sense influenced by Buddhism perhaps? Based on the definition of the word, it's not going anywhere no matter what quest you think you're embarking on. Desire is a manifestation, (or aspect, or part, or appearance) of reality, what makes you think it's going anywhere simply by way of realization of 'oneness', or impermanence, or realization related to self nature, or any other?
movingalways wrote:of idealism/belief in self (suffering)
At once you seem to be denying Self, and then saying the Self is one of being of reality. How then does it have any power to alter reality? Or be of reality yet decide any quest?

Again, try expressing these truths with the context of your personal experience, because they don't make any sense without it.

With the context of personal experience, there is the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of the temporary and essentially illusory boundaries of differentiation between what is self or not self, and hence the recognition of being of reality. These to me are one half of that realism, you seem to be fixated on this half, essentially ignoring the very obvious and true reality of the conventional (worldly). Perhaps based on hearsay or some Buddha idolization, because I know if you were to be honest, the reality of conventional wisdom is equally as significant.

That being which desires and has a nature and makes choices in the conventional sense of the world, is you. It is the Self, you are Pam, you are making choices, you are the master of your reality, you have desires, and they aren't going anywhere. Is that not true in your worldly experience? Clearly that decision maker is not some ultimately or even truthfully existing entity, but you seem to act as if the ultimate and the conventional (while appearing contradictory in description) do not co exist with truth.
movingalways wrote:he cessation of desire is the only way to absolute clarity of reality
Another blanket statement. Are you sure?

Oh and, for the sake of clarity, as I mentioned before when you were being sensitive and dismissive, I still think you're a believer, with some strong prejudices.

(And what's in it for me?)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker, you ignored my clearly stated reasoning, the very foundation for my understanding of desire and instead made it all about your feelings (desires) and conjectures about my understanding of desire. If that is an example of your mastery of reality, then all you have accomplished is to reinforce my love of wisdom that is absolute.

Conventional wisdom (dictionary.com: the generally accepted belief, opinion, judgment, or prediction about a particular matter, read "relativism") does not interest me. Why? Because it is ever changing. Only wisdom that is true in all words at all times (absolute) has my attention. Why? Because it never changes. I am not denying that conventional wisdom exists, just the opposite (the world turns on its axis of hearsay) only that since childhood it has been of no value to me.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Let me rephrase for you Pam.

Wisdom which is true at all times is only ever made up of, only ever present in, only ever valuable in relation to, the conventional and temporary. Absolute wisdom is itself only ever referring to the impermanent and conventional.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Let me rephrase for you Pam.

Wisdom which is true at all times is only ever made up of, only ever present in, only ever valuable in relation to, the conventional and temporary. Absolute wisdom is itself only ever referring to the impermanent and conventional.
Not so. Since conventional is defined by the conventional to mean "a general accepted theory or belief" it does not meet the criteria of "I know". What I know (absolute wisdom) is permanent, true in all worlds. For an example, refer to my most recent post to Alex in his Christianity thread where I stated with absolute certainty that causal patterns cannot be retraced. This is not a theory or a belief, it is a reasoned and realized absolute truth. One, I may add, that serves to liberate man from the conventional belief that such a feat is possible.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Then I had previously been using the word to mean worldly/temporary too strongly. Instead:

Wisdom which is true at all times is only ever made up of, only ever present in, only ever valuable in relation to, the temporary. Absolute wisdom is itself only ever referring to the impermanent.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Then I had previously been using the word to mean worldly/temporary too strongly. Instead:

Wisdom which is true at all times is only ever made up of, only ever present in, only ever valuable in relation to, the temporary. Absolute wisdom is itself only ever referring to the impermanent.
As long as you are not suggesting that your "wisdom which is true at all times" is conventional, bingo, your definition fits the criteria of knowing/nonattachment versus believing/clinging.

As I see it, what is defined as conventional wisdom is not wisdom but is instead a compilation of beliefs based on the delusion of the dualism of good and evil. While I understand its value for the unenlightened (and why they might call this value "wisdom") and and have no wish to undermine this value for those who need it, in a discussion about ultimate things, conventional beliefs can only be viewed in the light of leaving them behind.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Well, whatever the accurate definition of conventional, now it's been rightly replaced with impermanent, and my point still stands.

The point was: why do you only concern yourself with absolute wisdom, which by definition should not concern itself with anything specific of the temporary. Did you not know that even suffering is temporary? As is any clinging, attachment, or stress. These are all very real and wisdom is concerned with them yet they are not ever lasting truths. My whole point and the change of understanding I went through -as I was previously of the same understanding that only absolute wisdom was of import- is that all wisdom is in fact only valuable in relationship with our temporary condition. Whereas in the past I might have thought of the temporary human condition as more of a belief or delusion than a reality (as realization of impermanence tends to lead one to divorce from the temporary), now it's clear to me that such a way of thinking is errenous. In terms of the temporary, desire in itself is not suffering, whereas loss or strong yearning might be, instead I see that suffering is only present when there is belief and bondage. Rather than renouncing the human condition because it is temporary, you can realize your full potential for freedom because it is temporary.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker: The point was: why do you only concern yourself with absolute wisdom, which by definition should not concern itself with anything specific of the temporary. Did you not know that even suffering is temporary? As is any clinging, attachment, or stress. These are all very real and wisdom is concerned with them yet they are not ever lasting truths.
Once wisdom (the truth) of form impermanence is absorbed, suffering naturally ends.
My whole point and the change of understanding I went through -as I was previously of the same understanding that only absolute wisdom was of import- is that all wisdom is in fact only valuable in relationship with our temporary condition.
Whereas in the past I might have thought of the temporary human condition as more of a belief or delusion than a reality (as realization of impermanence tends to lead one to divorce from the temporary), now it's clear to me that such a way of thinking is errenous. In terms of the temporary, desire in itself is not suffering, whereas loss or strong yearning might be, instead I see that suffering is only present when there is belief and bondage. Rather than renouncing the human condition because it is temporary, you can realize your full potential for freedom because it is temporary
.
Again, let's go for simplicity. Form is impermanent.

Having said these things, obviously there was a time when I made things of wisdom complicated, at times, very complicated. I credit these times to being as an intense fire that eventually "burned me up." What I discovered is that the steps of ignorance one takes to final release are not only not wasted, they appear to be absolutely critical and necessary to the process with desire being both match and fuel. Release cannot be hurried or forced. There is a saying in the bible that addresses the gradual (and at times, frustrating and painful and difficult) way to knowledge of spirit: "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: Once wisdom (the truth) of form impermanence is absorbed, suffering naturally ends.

Again, let's go for simplicity. Form is impermanent.

Having said these things, obviously there was a time when I made things of wisdom complicated, at times, very complicated. I credit these times to being as an intense fire that eventually "burned me up." What I discovered is that the steps of ignorance one takes to final release are not only not wasted, they appear to be absolutely critical and necessary to the process with desire being both match and fuel. Release cannot be hurried or forced.
I don't think you addressed the core of my point, which was that desire is not suffering in itself, and doesn't need to be absent for one to be free of suffering. Nor does one need to ignore the temporary human condition (which comes with desire). In fact I'd say that doing so is more of an erroneous avoidance or an aversion, perhaps because one has so closely associated desire with suffering, the two are assumed to be inseparable? Release from suffering comes, as you mentioned, with the wisdom of impermanence, since then there is no more clinging, no loss, no belief, no bondage. To me this is a process which allows a greater potential for freedom with reality.

Also, perhaps it is the difference between how you view death as a possible end to consciousness/existence, if I remember correctly? Whereas I don't expect or believe in any end to the 'personal' becoming of consciousness, appearances, experiences. So perhaps from this viewpoint of endless existence you can more clearly see why 'working with' the temporary condition, rather than futilely attempting to ignore or dismiss its importance, is essential. Otherwise one would be endlessly refusing life itself.

I think that, perhaps because you have experienced non-attachment deeply, and are no longer immersed in all the differentiation and discrimination regarding form, especially in regards to the human condition, (I'm assuming we have a common experience of this non-attachment and non-belief, in which even the most basic of clinging to the what's and how's and why's is no longer present, along with the clarity of the falling away of predisposition and even the falling away of the obscuring of familiarity, am I correct to assume so?) you have concluded that dwelling in that 'release' is the path of wisdom? Great discussion!
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker: I don't think you addressed the core of my point, which was that desire is not suffering in itself, and doesn't need to be absent for one to be free of suffering. Nor does one need to ignore the temporary human condition (which comes with desire). In fact I'd say that doing so is more of an erroneous avoidance or an aversion, perhaps because one has so closely associated desire with suffering, the two are assumed to be inseparable? Release from suffering comes, as you mentioned, with the wisdom of impermanence, since then there is no more clinging, no loss, no belief, no bondage. To me this is a process which allows a greater potential for freedom with reality.

Why desire form when it comes freely? The only desire I can think of that is beneficial is the desire for liberation for all who are not yet liberated, the Buddhist concepts of bodhisattva/bodhicitta comes to mind. When I researched a definition of these concepts, however, the verb "wish" is used rather than desire.
Also, perhaps it is the difference between how you view death as a possible end to consciousness/existence, if I remember correctly? Whereas I don't expect or believe in any end to the 'personal' becoming of consciousness, appearances, experiences. So perhaps from this viewpoint of endless existence you can more clearly see why 'working with' the temporary condition, rather than futilely attempting to ignore or dismiss its importance, is essential. Otherwise one would be endlessly refusing life itself.
Once wisdom of spirit (or causality) is absorbed, thoughts of birth and death (or afterlife, etc.) are irrelevant. Why? Because there is no beginning or ending to spirit/causing. You mention the end of clinging to the whats and hows and whys below - this truth applies here.
I think that, perhaps because you have experienced non-attachment deeply, and are no longer immersed in all the differentiation and discrimination regarding form, especially in regards to the human condition, (I'm assuming we have a common experience of this non-attachment and non-belief, in which even the most basic of clinging to the what's and how's and why's is no longer present, along with the clarity of the falling away of predisposition and even the falling away of the obscuring of familiarity, am I correct to assume so?) you have concluded that dwelling in that 'release' is the path of wisdom? Great discussion!
Yes and yes. :-)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote:Why desire form when it comes freely? The only desire I can think of that is beneficial is the desire for liberation for all who are not yet liberated, the Buddhist concepts of bodhisattva/bodhicitta comes to mind. When I researched a definition of these concepts, however, the verb "wish" is used rather than desire
There is no real difference regarding the becoming of desire or form, meaning, that they both arise. I see desire as part of the human condition, not something that we could throw away even if we wished it so.
movingalways wrote:Once wisdom of spirit (or causality) is absorbed, thoughts of birth and death (or afterlife, etc.) are irrelevant. Why? Because there is no beginning or ending to spirit/causing. You mention the end of clinging to the whats and hows and whys below - this truth applies here.
What you've written above, or perhaps just the way you've written it, is where I lose you. By the above logic, there is no 'death as an end' whatsoever to be spoken of. The 'default position', so to speak, is that of consciousness, existence, spirit, manifestation, impermanence. "The end" really only exists as a fleeting imagination. So I don't grasp why you previously spoke of it as a possibility?

Or- correct me if I'm wrong- why do you speak of 'spirit' in an impersonal way? At all times are you really not just referring to the truth of the reality of the self? (Not as any enduring or fixed entity with any fixed personality or fixed self-substance, of course).
movingalways wrote:Yes and yes. :-)
That's where I differ, for me I don't see any harm in 'immersion'. Since I don't believe that one could ever fully 'go back' to not-knowing the reality of things, but only temporarily be immersed. In this way I see it as a wonderful playground, total freedom without the fear of loss. I consider both outlooks, that of the absolute and that of the temporary condition, equally- Firstly, that of the absolute wisdom of impermanence and non-attachment, the emptiness. And secondly, that of the immersion, the reality of the human condition and the world. One does not exist without the other, they are the same reality, and I no longer am fixated on either half. I should add that I completely agree it is much worse to be fixated solely on the temporary half, which is the tendency of most, and much better to be only focused on the absolute, if one had to choose. But that's the thing, I don't think you have to. This all stems from what I see as a necessary context of purpose, or drive. I don't think you can ever truly be without it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker: There is no real difference regarding the becoming of desire or form, meaning, that they both arise. I see desire as part of the human condition, not something that we could throw away even if we wished it so.
Why are you attached to the human condition?
movingalways wrote:
Once wisdom of spirit (or causality) is absorbed, thoughts of birth and death (or afterlife, etc.) are irrelevant. Why? Because there is no beginning or ending to spirit/causing. You mention the end of clinging to the whats and hows and whys below - this truth applies here.
Seeker wrote: What you've written above, or perhaps just the way you've written it, is where I lose you. By the above logic, there is no 'death as an end' whatsoever to be spoken of.
Precisely. There is no way for consciousness to grasp/understand/see the movement of causality, it happens at "spirit" speed. The concepts of birth and death are just that, concepts. Where "birth" was conceptualized so the conventional mind could imagine a beginning point of "self", "death" was conceptualized so the conventional mind could imagine an ending point of "self." In truth, there is no beginning or ending or self. Realizing that the causality is an unbroken continuum is an important part of liberation from grasping at "a/the cause."
The 'default position', so to speak, is that of consciousness, existence, spirit, manifestation, impermanence. "The end" really only exists as a fleeting imagination. So I don't grasp why you previously spoke of it as a possibility?
Any previous reference I made to the "the end" as a possibility is just that, a previous reference.
Or- correct me if I'm wrong- why do you speak of 'spirit' in an impersonal way? At all times are you really not just referring to the truth of the reality of the self? (Not as any enduring or fixed entity with any fixed personality or fixed self-substance, of course).
No, my reference to spirit is not a reference to "the reality of the self" - as I said above, there is no such reality. I am aware you disagree. Can you provide me with your reasoning to support this conclusion?

There is only the impersonal. Belief in "the personal/the self" arose because of wrong view of "a beginning" (the concept of birth). The Buddha referred to the "self" as the housebuilder (aka the human condition):

"Seeking but not finding the house builder,
I hurried through the round of many births:
Painful is birth ever and again.

O house builder, you have been seen;
You shall not build the house again.
Your rafters have been broken up,
Your ridgepole is demolished too.

My mind has now attained the unformed Nibbâna
And reached the end of every sort of craving."
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

This topic to me, is one of the most subtle and fundamental things to talk about and it seems to me the 'mistake' of various sages and teachings in regards to "self", either by way of miscommunication or misapprehension. I'm enthused though that wisdom discussion this direct and fundamental can be had, but I'll be able to put more time into my reply tomorrow when it's not 2am.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote:Why are you attached to the human condition?
Not attached to, just outlining the reality of it. Of course it is not the same as the ordinary person imagines it to be, but it still exists in truth.
movingalways wrote: Seeker wrote: What you've written above, or perhaps just the way you've written it, is where I lose you. By the above logic, there is no 'death as an end' whatsoever to be spoken of.

Precisely. There is no way for consciousness to grasp/understand/see the movement of causality, it happens at "spirit" speed. The concepts of birth and death are just that, concepts. Where "birth" was conceptualized so the conventional mind could imagine a beginning point of "self", "death" was conceptualized so the conventional mind could imagine an ending point of "self." In truth, there is no beginning or ending or self. Realizing that the causality is an unbroken continuum is an important part of liberation from grasping at "a/the cause."
I essentially agree with everything above. Perhaps except for two things. Firstly, and this is an extremely minor thing, the way you wrote "so" seems odd to me, as it seems to imply the imagining of such was an intention of the conventional mind. I'm sure that's almost completely irrelevant, just clarifying.

Secondly, the words "or self".

When we speak of a beginning-less and endless continuum, are you not essentially speaking of an unbroken continuum of what is referred to as 'consciousness'? Or what we could refer to as appearances, manifestations, or even thoughts and sensations.

And if that is the case, why should the old meaning of the word self - which wrongly referred to some kind of enduring self substance, personality or belonging- not simply be replaced with the word self in relation to 'consciousness'? You worded it in a prior conversation as not being a master of reality but "of being of reality", so I'm not seeing the issue here.
movingalways wrote: Any previous reference I made to the "the end" as a possibility is just that, a previous reference.
Just to clarify, are you cetain that there is no "end", or is this only an uncertainty to you? To me, believing in even the possibility of such a thing is literally the highest degree of delusion- if we can speak of it in degrees- since one cannot even conceptualize such a state, logically it is beyond the realm of possibility.

Also, while on the topic, I now wonder what your interpretation of those quotes wherein the Buddha referenced filling oceans with tears is?
movingalways wrote:No, my reference to spirit is not a reference to "the reality of the self" - as I said above, there is no such reality. I am aware you disagree. Can you provide me with your reasoning to support this conclusion?

There is only the impersonal. Belief in "the personal/the self" arose because of wrong view of "a beginning" (the concept of birth). The Buddha referred to the "self" as the housebuilder (aka the human condition):

"Seeking but not finding the house builder,
I hurried through the round of many births:
Painful is birth ever and again.

O house builder, you have been seen;
You shall not build the house again.
Your rafters have been broken up,
Your ridgepole is demolished too.

My mind has now attained the unformed Nibbâna
And reached the end of every sort of craving."
I would say "there is only the impermanent personal"... or the im-personal! :P

There is no reason the impermanent cannot be called personal, or the transient cannot be called self. The self -though it was previously and wrongly defined as such- does not need to be enduring or fixed. To me the self is the becoming and the unfolding.

A complete denial of self is unrealistic. Perhaps it may sound realistic as a thought or idea when considering these topics, but it is not true in experience. I think you'll see that this whole process has always been you, it has always been personal, and you have always been involved, as you are at this moment. Though the issue seems to be mainly in definition, as I would say that one cannot distinguish between self and reality. (Except by way of erroneously the trying to distinguish between the particular and the totality). So you could get away with saying my use of the word is meaningless, but I think there is more of a disparity between your understanding and mine than just language.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

I realize I am preempting your reply, but wanted to respond to your paragraph below, something I failed to do in my most recent reply to you:
That's where I differ, for me I don't see any harm in 'immersion'. Since I don't believe that one could ever fully 'go back' to not-knowing the reality of things, but only temporarily be immersed. In this way I see it as a wonderful playground, total freedom without the fear of loss. I consider both outlooks, that of the absolute and that of the temporary condition, equally- Firstly, that of the absolute wisdom of impermanence and non-attachment, the emptiness. And secondly, that of the immersion, the reality of the human condition and the world. One does not exist without the other, they are the same reality, and I no longer am fixated on either half. I should add that I completely agree it is much worse to be fixated solely on the temporary half, which is the tendency of most, and much better to be only focused on the absolute, if one had to choose. But that's the thing, I don't think you have to. This all stems from what I see as a necessary context of purpose, or drive. I don't think you can ever truly be without it.
Where you see the temporary human condition including the idea of self, desire and drive as a wonderful playground, I experience it in my heart as the metaphysical principle of the ignorance of dualism, the root cause of suffering. One that is countered and reversed/released by the coming of the principle of wisdom (light/realization) of the nondual absolute or spirit. Obviously while dualism is being reversed/released, one remains attached to the human condition, however, at no time is it viewed as being anything but that which is purposed "to be finished." Although I don't use the concept of karma and its release to describe this internal process of "mortality being swallowed up of life", it works as a model for the sake of understanding.

I have addressed the issue of the dark side of God (the drive toward separation/dualism) many times on this forum: the spirit of hate (the causation of hate), the spirit of lust, the spirit of greed, the spirit of arrogance, etc. It is this very dark side of God that caused me to go within with demands for an answer as to why these things exist and what can be done to bring these things to an end. And with persistence, reasoning, meditation and contemplation, the answers came.

There is context in all I have described above, however, the only desire or drive present is that which is being released back from whence it came, into the Spirit (formless) "God" or "Father."

So we definitely have different views on the human condition. Looking forward to reading how you concluded "the reality (permanence/absoluteness?) of self."
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote:Where you see the temporary human condition including the idea of self, desire and drive as a wonderful playground, I experience it in my heart as the metaphysical principle of the ignorance of dualism, the root cause of suffering.
Let me try and explain why I would say that you are erring here.

It seems that you are implying that 'dualism' is some kind of state or view to overcome, to be replaced with recognition of the 'nondual absolute', which is described as being the more accurate view, as if that understanding itself were some kind of absolute realization. It seems that you are doing this not only with dualism, but also with causality, in the sense that you imply 'causality' is more than a description of the nature of reality. Whereas I would say that the arising of the very idea and all related experience is at best something reflecting knowledge of reality- yet still only an impermanent manifestation of reality.

I will try to clarify further:

Have you considered that this very conversation which is ongoing now is itself a 'manifestation' of reality? That it is 'made up' of impermanent appearances, none of which any individual or being has control over ultimately?

Even when you realize impermanence or are in recognition of it, that insight itself is an impermanent manifestation. When you are in recognition of dualism, differentiation, clinging and belief, those insights are themselves actually impermanent manifestations. When you contemplate causality, that experience itself is nothing more than a transient manifestation. You do not decide these, you are not in control of these, they are not owned realizations. Is this understanding resonating?

I would say that the ultimate truth to be thoroughly discerned is that of impermanent appearances. All other truth and experience is only an aspect, or a manifestation of, impermanence. Nothing escapes the reality of it.

The same goes for all of the thoughts and ideas we have. They are transient manifestations of reality. Even the awareness or feeling of existing and being falls under this category. There is no "source", no "beyond form", and even no "formless" nature or aspect of reality which transcends. There is no 'higher state'. (Which is why when you used that word "formless" in brackets next to "Spirit" I was curious).

movingalways wrote:Spirit (formless) "God" or "Father.
I'm not sure how you conceptualize these words, or exactly what you're referring to, unless you mean reality?

Impermanence is the rock to build upon, and almost all other absolute wisdom comes from clarification through not believing and not clinging. For example, non-belief in death as an end elucidates the truth of beginning-less and endless existence.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker, this thread is turning into War and Peace, my brain needs a vacation, but I didn't want to leave it without acknowledging how much I enjoyed the discussion. Perhaps at a later date I'll revisit your replies and respond.
Locked