All you get without chocolate

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

All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 4:10 pm

"The simplicity of causality permeates the infinite complexity of reality." -Russell

Pretence of knowing.

No doubt you've experienced the path for a long time with this hinderence. 

You aren't as yet able to understand it apparently, since you've read it before probably many times from various texts. Though I will at least point out some of the confusion.

The focus on "causality" as ultimate truth points to a lack of recognition of true nature.

Your entire understanding of life seems to rest upon views such as this one, according to your own word at least. 

You seem to completely misunderstand who/what you are in your writings. It seems that moving, jup and diebert, in one way or another, share a similar view.

There seems to be some confusing story about non-attachment to illusion or self, all encompassing causality, and thus no free will, a consciousness which is bound to body/brain, but you are of the All so you are not bound to life or death, your consciousness just may end at death but you are unsure. Outside of you is the whole wide infinite of causality stuff, which is actually non-existent until the body-caused consciousness comes along to differentiate it. Follow with some jazz about biology, hormones, age, culture, the act of identification, and so on and so on.

It seems you are like babies not as of yet gone through self realization.

You say you don't even have free will, there's little hope indeed! Might as well throw you into a pit of books and hope you stumble across the narrow way.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri May 27, 2016 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri May 27, 2016 5:25 pm

Sorry, that's all too much for me. We're speaking two completely different languages with two completely different expectations regarding conversation. I regard your way as "not great" to say the least... <<< Just kidding with that, it's just too easy being you :-)

As for the content, how are you not attached to a notion of consciousness unbound by any causes (being physical, spiritual, magical, logical whatever)? Next thing you're going to say is that this "true nature" or "unbound freedom" you're talking about all lies "beyond words" and you cannot really talk about that. Duh!

It's also possible you've not yet understood what's meant with causality, interpreting everything thus as materialistic and narrow-minded. And what about your notion of free will? What's the point if there are no boundaries to define what's "free" or not or even what "will" looks like in the face of not having such thing at all.

Please address some of it. Slowly if you want. So far it seems you're arguing against a ghost image you've created of the thoughts of other people. A common tactic: first construct a convenient self-serving image of what other people are arguing for, then launch an attack to take it down a notch. Such challenge is in itself a good thing on the condition that one is able to actually conceive of something what the other is intending. That's where it would start.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 5:55 pm

It's by your own word- the notion of causality-bound monkey.
Actions,etc, as being artifacts of causality. As well as all the references to biology. The very way in which you each speak about causality and the All continues to express these similar faults since they are entirely out of place (in regard to their focus which is truth.) It seems your entire understanding is affected by core views like this one, again, you are like toddlers, since it is all based in nonsense. And thus it would be nonsense go through it all from causality onward. It's as if you were 'raised' wrong from the start.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri May 27, 2016 6:04 pm


Okay, all easy things to claim, shrouded in clouds or mysterious swamp gas. Just present your argument against the truth of causality then. Or is it reasoning or "truth defining" itself you object to? You prefer drinking tea together and hum-mm?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 7:17 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just present your argument against the truth of causality then.
Forgot my argument debate cards. What'd you expect?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri May 27, 2016 8:10 pm

It's a discussion forum. Or do you want to turn it into some experimental virtual place with art, expression, silence, shock treatment and such? That's so naive and done so many times with predictable results: meaninglessness, boredom, noise and self-destructive tendencies.

You are still married to a goal, a purpose beyond the one given by this context. You want your conversation here to be something special, deep, beyond words or reasoning. And you'd deny even that because that way it doesn't have to be discussed. It can live on undisturbed, unchallenged! But that's just for you, for your ego. You are talking to your own wall and then blame others for being dim, baby, this or that.

Snap out of it! It's your own mind fooling you into thinking you figured something out. And then starts to hide in that notion or feeling. Escapism.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 8:56 pm

haha, tell me you really believe that? ^

(See what I'm talking about?)

And you didn't actually ask me any questions. You said "present your argument against the truth of causality."

I don't have an argument against the "truth of causality".

Get it? Maybe just learn to word your questions better and stop freaking out diebsby! :)

In case I didn't mention, it's not just the baby-like intellects, you guys also act like babies all the time. I'm thinking of small children by the way, like toddlers. Some related words or tendencies, you may be afflicted by one or more of these: emotional, impatient, quick to make thoughtless claims, quick to speak of transient ideas(often irrelevant or purely make-believe), quick to argue, with overly energetic intentions and action.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri May 27, 2016 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri May 27, 2016 9:11 pm

You won't present an argument or reason, instead you come to make them. Perhaps you see yourself as a Zen master, provoking an awakening with your ant-killing and conventional name-calling, perhaps this is just 'fun' for you, who knows, do you?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 9:16 pm

movingalways wrote:You won't present an argument or reason,
See, more "Quick to speak make believe". ^


You are telling me "I will not" do something, for me?

And to answer the 6 other things:

No,No,No(how would killing ants possibly achieve that outcome? are you crazy?),No,Yes,No.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri May 27, 2016 10:09 pm

You're aware of the causality of killing ants?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri May 27, 2016 10:17 pm

No, I am not currently aware of your causality of killing ants.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri May 27, 2016 11:04 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I don't have an argument against the "truth of causality".
But you do! If you'd care about remembering your own words: " confusing story ... outside of you is the whole wide infinite of causality stuff, which is actually non-existence". Why are you thinking people made any claims about any "outside" of "themselves". Why are you mentioning "stuff" when causality is no thing at all, not "here", not "there"? What have body & brain to do with this any way?
In case I didn't mention, it's not just the baby-like intellects, you guys also act like babies all the time. I'm thinking of small children by the way, like toddlers. Some related words or tendencies, you may be afflicted by one or more of these: emotional, impatient, quick to make thoughtless claims, quick to speak of transient ideas(often irrelevant or purely make-believe), quick to argue, with overly energetic intentions and action.
That's a matter of perspective. You're loading qualities on people as some kind of ad hominin argument, as if it means something. You'd better start actually discussing something because unless someone succeeds in starting an actual discussion with you, you're wasting not only your own time but everyone else's. That's why I asked if you have a purpose in mind. You seem "all over the place", imagining being some fantasy character.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri May 27, 2016 11:26 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:No, I am not currently aware of your causality of killing ants.
The question was not about my causality or your causality of killing ants, just about THE causality of killing ants. I cannot know how you are effected by killing an ant nor can you know how I am effected by killing an ant, but the truth is, if either one of us consciously causes the death of an ant and we can't identity the reason/cause for doing so (to ourselves) then what are we but unconscious animals?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 12:06 am

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 28, 2016 12:33 am


Seeker, the issue with sounding so incoherent and confused, like in your case, is that I'm starting to wonder if it's not you who is in crisis and near exploding. Perhaps not. But I'm asking you again to change your approach into something else, otherwise you'll have to seek elsewhere. Is there anyone, any place in the world you can communicate this topic? If not, perhaps you should reconsider it might be you, only you. A private fantasy.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat May 28, 2016 12:38 am

SeekerofWisdom: My causality is THE causality, your causality is YOUR causality.
My reasoning?
Because you endlessly show yourself to be of the toddler variety.
And who's going to be right in that battle?
Stand still for a moment and let's talk about what (not who) is the logical wisdom being addressed here.

'You' are not THE causality as long as you are conscious of the causality. Consciousness is the cause of dual awareness (or dual awareness is the cause of consciousness, the chicken and the egg thing). But this is a problem for you, one we have discussed before, because you have reasoned (illogically) that consciousness is THE causality. This is the heart of the glitch in your wisdom.

So now, let's look at your use of all caps when you addressed 'MY' causality in relation to 'your' causality, which I am left to infer is meant to show me that because 'you' are THE causality, and I don't realize that 'I' am THE causality that you are not attached to your causal 'I' and I am. What I am saying is that because you have falsely reasoned that consciousness is THE causality rather than being caused of or by THE causality, you are attached to your 'I' (for now) just as 'I' am attached to my 'I' (for now) but I have enough wisdom to realize it and you don't.

Bottom line is that consciousness logically cannot be THE causality because consciousness operates on partial or subjective consciousness of things/events/circumstances. The evidence is in your baby-toddler view of us - do you claim this to be absolute truth or the whole truth of Diebert, Russell and Pam? If not, would not an omnipresent and omniscient consciousness know ALL of Diebert and ALL of Russell and ALL of Pam?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 12:57 am

Moving, you're not asking very good questions in my view.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat May 28, 2016 1:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 1:04 am

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 28, 2016 1:41 am

Seeker: "Feel free to ask. I can make it pretty clear, if you like."

Could you make your following statement more clear:
  • "The focus on "causality" as ultimate truth points to a lack of recognition of true nature.
Especially since you just seem to replace "understanding causality" with "recognition of true nature". Since causality has been defined, by some at least, as a clear, profound reference to the true nature of things, including self, how would you differentiate?

Feel free to elaborate using other approaches. But you cannot just make claims. They need to relate to something to make sense.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 1:55 am

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat May 28, 2016 5:04 am

If by true nature you are referring to emptiness and/or impermanence, the truth of emptiness and impermanence does not nullify the truth of the law of causality. For example, you are aware that everything to do with Genius Forum is empty and impermanent: the words, the symbols, the different shades of blue, the black ink, the keyboard, the computer, the names of the members, etc. but this does not stop you from being caused to come to Genius Forum to read and react to the emptiness and impermanence. Were you not caused (moved) to come and read Diebert's empty and impermanent post? Were you not caused (moved) to react to Diebert's empty and impermanent post? Was I not caused (moved) to read and react to Diebert's post and your reaction, ergo here you are, being caused to read my reaction and perhaps, being caused to react?

I can't recall but I assume in previous posts you have used the word 'experience' to denote a happenstance. Could not the word 'experience' be interchanged with 'caused' or 'causation?' What is important is the expression of movement or being moved. Often this is best expressed by the concept the causality as a continuum.

Empty, yes. Impermanent, yes. Caused, also yes.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 28, 2016 7:02 am

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: If you're being serious about trying to speak truth, but at the same time constantly referring to causality, biology, etc, then that seems to indicate a lack of recognition of true nature.
I would not refer to causality like that at all. I probably wouldn't use the word at all really, I'd try another! Especially if it's a word which is so prone to being confused, mistaken, and eventually worshiped as the nature of the Tao by toddlers.
Yeah, "true nature" is so much better! [cough]

Dependent origination or relativity are used at times, conveying much of the same. But I'm still puzzled why you mention biology. Causality is a philosophical term foremost. We could use something else, what counts is how one reasons with it. How the term connects. That's what reason, truth and meaning is about, how it can connect as broadly and meaningful possible. As to ring "true" as well as "through". Lets take "randomness" as example of some wild alternative.
  • The Random. That's all there is. Another word for the infinite and infinite possibilities. Any sense of order is illusion. Since there's only randomness, order is just some imagined pattern where there is none. A temporary fluke only meaningful to a pattern obsessed chaotic mind which is nothing but a random occurrence. Complete randomness is the only truth, the only certainty. Similarities and repetitions are illusions, in themselves also random patterns, one in a gazillion that such pattern belief happens but it's just to deny the chaos.
Of course "all is random" would be itself a random event, meaning that at times it could just as well be order. Randomly. Therefore, the reasoning fails to convince. Randomness as such is a contradicting principle. It only can describe appearances, not principle.

Really, causality is a good term. Since obviously causality doesn't need a cause, it directly points to the truth that nothing exists simply because all boundaries are being caused and changing. It's then a matter of definition, will and purpose for things to manifest in our discourse and reasoning. Not unlike our words are nothing without sentence or larger context, a receiver and intention either.

If that's too long for you to concentrate on, just answer this: what do you mean with "true nature". Why not just "truth" or "nature"? And what's a false nature? Do you have the adult mind to tackle this or are you going to repeat how wrong everyone else is?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 2:24 pm

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 3:20 pm

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 28, 2016 6:53 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:[ "true nature"] is simply a reference, and isn't wrongly attributing some all-encompassing "causality" as the nature of reality.
Causality is simply a reference and isn't wrongly attributing some true-false value or implying some unspecified "quality" to some magical thought about reality. If reality has any quality, any nature, it's the one of causality. That's all a word like causality adds. It cannot be denied without applying causality. In the end, causality cannot exist unless it's everything and infinite.
Who used the term "false nature"? Not me.
If you're not using the term false nature, there's no need to specify "true" nature. Then just talk about nature, tao or god.
You are either wise or not. You could call all those who aren't of the "wise" category of "false nature" if you feel like it!
Well, it's not about what I feel. Please do not try to say things and make me the one wanting it to be said!
You're apparently trying to Know in terms of explanation/version/idea/'logic' rather than by way of Self-Knowledge.
Thus confusion regarding what's true.
You are assuming way too much. I'm apparently trying to discuss in terms of explanation/version/idea/logic. Only some idiot would try to wave his hands or use mind control to make his point. Are you an idiot?
You guys
Only a sheep talks in terms of the herd. The lost, wandering sheeplet keeps on addressing with "they" or "you all". It's the sound of one sheep meh-ing, to himself. But all I ever see is one stupid sheep at the time, by mirror reflection obviously. Any concept of herd is your own imagination around this place at least.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: because all boundaries are being caused and changing
No it doesn't/No they aren't.
Boundaries are uncaused and unchanging then? Or do not exist at all? The point is that you keep invoking them, no matter how you'd deny. Even denials are boundaries, attempts to create. This is how I read your attempt to deny recently. Trying to create a little niche for your own nothingness to act out in!

Post Reply