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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 7:25 pm

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:38 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 8:36 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: It seems that based on your recent writings, the four of you similarly share these wrong views
But you're not able to articulate what these shared wrong views are.. It's all in your fantasy, that's all I can assume.
You literally introduced the herd concept and then said any concept of it is in my imagination.
No, you are talking in pluralities, addressing "four of us". Nobody else.
I'm making it clear that you are wrong about the relevance of causality, and the nature of causality, in regard to a correct understanding of nature, tao or god. Thus showing you that you have 'missed the narrow way'.
Just stating that someone is wrong is meaningless. It's baffling you're even bringing up "toddlers" when you refuse to even talk!
You are wrong. Want to hear more reasons why? There are no doubt many.
Yes please. So far you don't give any detail about this but keep on repeating "wrong wrong", "toddler toddler". It's your new "shtick"?

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 9:45 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:38 am, 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 » Sat May 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Seeker, while you believe you are not attached to your 'I', your words betray this belief in every post. Not only in content and context, but in tone/mood/energy.

At this point, I give to you the same advice you gave to Gustav/Alex so many times, advice I give myself when I find myself deceiving myself regarding attachment/nonattachment - time to return to insight meditation.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat May 28, 2016 10:59 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:38 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 » Sun May 29, 2016 12:24 am

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The wrong view that "causality" is some absolute principle of reality, or that any actions/thoughts/attributes are bound by causality or that "causality" is strongly related to ultimate truth or in any way an understanding central to enlightenment.

Not any specific wording or version of it, name one and I'll say the same. Just take a look, it's not hard to see mention of it in recent threads and conversations. These are indeed similar views that each of you has expressed recently, (the relationship of causality to ultimate truth).

And it's exactly what I'm calling the result of baby-like intellect.
Yes, got that the first time. No need for endless repeating. But why is it wrong?
Causality doesn't exist anywhere, except as a word referring to some relations or patterns you've thought about or seen;
But what does exist somewhere? All our words refer to relations and patterns you've thought about or have seen.
Relations,patterns,causality are not 'figured out' through some complex reasoning, and they aren't enduring attributes/qualities of reality, they're barely relevant descriptions of some things.
You're just saying again you disagree, which is just another repeat.
Anything you know of Causality is known because it is realized, not through any other method.
Anything at all, actually. But that doesn't change a thing in this discussion unless you suggest that one should stop reasoning?
Having realized that relations/patterns are barely relevant to my nature, I am not getting caught up saying how important they are to ultimate truth, which would be unwise and misleading.
So you're saying that ultimate truth is beyond words, concepts, ideas, falsehood, truth on perceived relations and patterns?

You just finished the first page of popular Buddhist booklets. Very good! Now what? Oooops.
To be clear, I'm not saying it is something you should think about and reason out its place in relation to truth. I'm saying that it's something which has entirely been gibberish from the start and you ought to realize this. The nonsense about cause and effect, dependent origination, no-self, the causality-related version of 'emptiness', and so on.
If you have something less "gibberish" to offer, please do.

If you think discussing this topic is not conductive to any development at all, just say so. But nihilism is very easy and tempting.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun May 29, 2016 2:17 am

movingalways wrote:
Seeker, while you believe you are not attached to your 'I',
Making things up again, since I do not believe I am not attached to my 'I'. (Whatever that means?)
From one of our PM's, your words: It is now impossible for me to suffer, I am not bound by anything, even living.

Still only this is language, I do not even notice an "I".

Also, am I not at the beginning of a thread explaining/showing what I mean?

The answer to that question is yes.
Showing what you mean by way of declaring the concept of causality as being a hindrance, but you failed to say why. What is 'causality' to you and why is it a hindrance?
Already, quick to make claims/ quick to ignore and dismiss/ quick to be impatient. As well as doubt/distrust now thrown in at the start of a conversation.
I should have posted the PM comment. Now I have.
I had even explained my ent-like conversational skills in advance.
You did not explain them, they were offered provocatively, like a mystery to be unwrapped.
I do not usually have conversations that are both time limited and expectation limited. I don't usually have conversations about ultimate reality which are quick, thoughtless, and based on the general idea that a party must be convinced/satisfied during the conversation for it to continue.
All conversations are a prelude to logical reasoning. It is after all, a discussion board. If you don't want to avail yourself of this purpose, then so be it. How does one reason with 'ent-like conversation skills?' The answer is, they can't.
These tendencies in conversation seem to be unwise ones.
Just the opposite, if you enter them in the spirit standing in what is true and reasoning why.
I am expressing my understanding, some of which includes: "irrationally sensitive child-like beings that don't like to learn from critique in all its forms" "completely supportive of values which are directly contradictory to seemingly all known virtues","continuously deflect from discussing the topic at hand", "as if they have not yet been raised", "would definitely do terribly in a debate" "seems to continuously be demonstrating all-consuming and blinding egotism" "Does not seem to know what egotism is".
There is no solid reasoning anywhere in those statements. What do you mean by 'irrationally sensitive?' 'child-like beings?' What are the values that are contradictory to seemingly (?) all known virtues? What is your definition of 'all-consuming and blinding egotism?'
If I'm not being explanatory enough feel free to ask.
Thank you, I have.
But I was unaware of your moods/energies that I had to abide by master.
You react as if I'm swearing at you drama queen.
In reality if anything I am instead offering goods.
Then offer them so that they can be reasoned with regarding what is true and what is not true.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 4:46 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:37 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 » Sun May 29, 2016 5:20 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Anything you know of Causality is known because it is realized, not through any other method.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Anything at all, actually.
Good, and how could you think Liberation means "bound by/of conditions".
It's not liberation plus bound by body and cause and effect.
Causality was brought to the table as a description of the "constancy of nature", the nature of reality, Brahman and the Infinite.

Liberation requires the mind to open. "Not knowing constancy leads to disaster. Knowing constancy, the mind is open" (Lao Tzu).

David Quinn wrote it up like this:
  • People often have a very superficial understanding of causation. They do not perceive its fundamental nature and fail to discern its significance. They do not see into its soul, as it were. It is important to keep deepening your understanding of causation until you can "see" it in utterly everything in the Universe. When you can observe the same fundamental process at work in all phenomena, without any variation at all, from the smallest speck of dust to the largest of galaxies, and thus can observe the sheer constancy behind all change - and when you can perceive the process of causation and the Universe itself to be absolutely identical in every way - only then will you know that you are staring into the magnificent timelessness of Nature.
My earlier thoughts on you, Seeker, when I started to converse with you years ago when you joined, all still stand. What you utter is nothing but drunkenness on the self and the power of perception. Navel-gazing in many ways. You feel compelled to make your point over and over again in an environment which doesn't even disagree on what looks like your main thesis. But somehow you feel compelled to argue, misread, ramble for something which isn't even part of a dispute. It just means you are highly emotional and hardly capable to work with the ideas and experiences you have stumbled upon.

Your whole act appears like an attempt to defend a misguide sense of no-self, to keep it going. It's the requirement you feel.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 5:30 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 5:55 pm

..
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:36 am, edited 8 times in total.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 6:01 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:36 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 » Sun May 29, 2016 6:45 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Liberation requires the mind to open. "Not knowing constancy leads to disaster. Knowing constancy, the mind is open" (Lao Tzu).
In my view, you ought not to quote Lao Tzu.
Send me your version of the tao te ching.
Near every post is that already. But more literal: here, from chapter two.
  • The notions of beauty and ugliness cause each other
    All good things done will create evil with them

    The same way existence and non-existence cause each other
    Or difficult and easy, long and short, heights and lows

    Like the musical intervals between opposing tones
    Contrapuntal as the past and future

    This is how a wise man gets his way without effort
    And how he teaches not by instructions

    As everything springs up by itself, no one has to interfere
    Causality takes care, no one is needed to produce

    The work is done, yet goes on forever
    Since nobody has done a thing
Seeker wrote:From that quote constancy is the word constancy not the word "causality" nor any reference to your version of it.
See chapter two above. The larger point is "constancy". To contemplate on "non-changing" or in other words what always is the case, has to be, is known to be the case. And not just now and then or in a few possible worlds or states.
Liberation requires nothing. Liberation is liberation, what could liberation possibly require.
Liberation from what? Liberation is meaningless without some opposite, some possibility of it being not the case.
Coming to be liberated might require some things though! :)
Coming to be liberated just means the same as "liberation". You're just playing word games here!
Quinn wrote:until you can "see" it in utterly everything in the Universe.
It seems he's making himself see it in utterly everything in his personal 'Universe'!
Feel free to examine the impersonal universe. LOL
Quinn wrote:into the magnificent timelessness of Nature.
True. But Lisa from the Simpsons might have said that!
Nobody said it was complex, difficult or new. The difference is that Lisa could only conceive of biological, physical nature.
Though I would have said "of" rather than "behind", removed the word "all", and replaced the words "can observe" with "know".

Even that single word right there "behind".
Babies are always concerned about what's "behind" everything.
So then just write it! I'll help you: "know the sheer constancy of change". Which is really the same thing but less visualized.
It looks like somewhere along the line he got confused and started to use it to mean cause and effect instead xD
And started thinking that nature is bound by the principle of "causality".

You apparently imagine "nature" to be something which it is not.
Nature is bound by its own nature, which is causality, a description of it as far as we could say anything about it at all.
I'm apparently not here for that larger issue, I'm here to show you that you are completely free. (Actions, words, outcomes, etc, not as artifacts of infinite/causality but as your own free choice)
Meaningless. How's that freedom working for you? It seems to mean you just say whatever you like and stop thinking about it. In reality what you are describing is being bound by some emotional need, an experience of freedom in terms of lack of consequence, conscience, effects, scrutiny and effort. In other words retreating in fantastical magical worlds where nothing can touch you.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 6:55 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by jupiviv » Sun May 29, 2016 8:13 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You don't understand, this isn't a competition. You're missing out on 'enlightenment' and you should know that just by realizing your own confusion.
So you went from "ultimate troof exists nowhere blabbity blah" to missing out on it within a few posts. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And yes, this *is* a competition for you, for demonstrating how big your wisdom penis is to the other lads (viz. Diebert and possibly me). Discussions about ultimate truth or reality are exactly the same as any other instance of rational discourse to the extent they require coherent and consistent arguments (also looking at you, Diebert). Quoting, paraphrasing or regurgitating dusty old tomes that have been read, interpreted and appreciated by everyone from tyrants to alchemists to New Age gurus over several centuries just doesn't cut it.

If I were a moderator I'd give you exactly one more chance to present what I would consider to be a serious argument (in your own time) under pain of having your dingo ass IP banned.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 8:15 pm

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 1:35 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 » Sun May 29, 2016 9:26 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
in fantastical magical worlds where nothing can touch you.
So you think "things can touch you"?
In other words you think you're bound.
That's not Liberation.
Things are caught up in any sense of self you can imagine to be the case.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Liberation from what?
Ignorance of true nature, which is bondage.
So liberation requires ignorance and bondage. That's all I wanted to say about it in the context you provided.
You need to self-realize without attachment to any filter. Your filter is thick apparently, it includes causality and a whole Universe that you're a part of. Do not, read, check your thoughts, and then reply. Instead, read, check by way of self-realization, then reply.
If you say so. You're trying to teach some half-ass meditation through forum posts. How absurd can you go? The wise do not instruct. They teach by setting example, like in this case: showing how to reason. If it's in you, you resonate and sing along.
In reality your will is waiting to be used, it is unbound (free), and it's your own.
For example one of your Idols says it over and over:

"The Tao is called the Great Mother:
empty yet inexhaustible,
it gives birth to infinite worlds.

It is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want."

You can use it any way you want.
Yes, that's what you really would like to be in that text. You're quoting chapter 6 by Stephen Mitchell, who does not translate but just "feels" what might have been meant by some text. Do your homework! Or just read my earlier post to you urging to understand this very text using more translations. And certainly not using one popular "translate how it feels" dude with high book sales and then go crazy quoting this one fuck-up.

Here are a few less self-serving translations of chapter 6 side by side. There used to be a site with many more to compare but it seems gone. This site also gives literal meaning of characters, giving the raw "use without effort". Which is close enough to "do without doing" in other Buddhist philosophy. Context is everything, the same meaning needs to permeat all related texts.

From most common translations you will get that what probably is meant is the effortless of nature. And since it's nature, why would there be effort, will, choice and so on. Unless something is pushing to behaviour which is interpreted as "trying".
You are free to do as you please, bound by nothing. It's good news.
But in practical terms, that doesn't mean shit, does it? The moment you'll engage situations, any situation, limitations will pop up.

Therefore, you're in a dream world. Wake up! Or keep avoiding all "situations", saying you're not interested and call that wisdom.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 10:24 pm

True. But it's still a more creative, fertile world than one where you're the single one object, the "Self"!
I do not live in a world where I am the single one object, the "Self"!

Sorry :)
The wise do not instruct. They teach by setting example
Did you read that in the tao te ching?
then go crazy quoting
Are you sure that's what happened?
this one fuck-up.
I was unaware of this particular toddler convention, sorry.
It would be a great verse whether jup wrote it 10 years ago or Lao Tzu.
I had already read Legge's Translation. Thanks for the link :)


"The female mystery thus do we name.
Its gate, from which at first they issued forth,
Is called the root from which grew heaven and earth. Long and unbroken does its power remain, Used gently, and without the touch of pain."

There you go, exact same truth. Can you read?

"its power remains.
Used gently (by who aye diebsby?)(And only if you know how, not to be used by toddlers) and without even the touch of suffering."

But in practical terms, that doesn't mean shit, does it? The moment you'll engage situations, any situation, limitations will pop up.
In practical and real-life terms, yes it does, and there are absolutely no limitations. Only the egotistical/unwise/bound would believe so.

You are wrong, true nature is nothing to do with the little person of doubt/fear/limitation/bondage/weakness.

You have not yet gone through self-realization fully apparently. Trust me, true nature is far better than one fret with pop-up limitations :)

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 » Sun May 29, 2016 11:13 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
The wise do not instruct. They teach by setting example
Did you read that in the tao te ching?
You're talking to Laozi himself, what does it matter? (and yes it's in there).
then go crazy quoting
Are you sure that's what happened?
Yes you relayed to me chapter 6 by Stephen Mitchell like you did in the past: invoking exclusively wacko translator Mitchell to justify your error when being challenged on terms. You stressed that this somehow illustrates your thoughts on free will and unlimited choices. Your freedom to pick and choose texts, for sure!
Used gently (by who aye diebsby?)(And only if you know how, not to be used by toddlers) and without even the touch of suffering."
Effortless action. Which is a whole other cup of tea than saying your will is waiting to be used, unbound (free), and your own.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun May 29, 2016 11:30 pm

Quote: movingalways:
What do you mean by 'irrationally sensitive?' 'child-like beings?'
Sensitive about your conventions/etiquette/expectations.You made it clear enough when you mentioned mood/tone/energy. The same goes for language.

You also have many aversions apparently when that etiquette is broken, because anyone breaking them is clearly being ignorant and is to be ignored.
("Like tip toeing around broken glass".
"Be gentle so as not to make the baby cry".)
I mentioned mood/tone/energy not because I care about etiquette but because a display of impatience or anger or unwillingness to express an idea clearly is a sign of attachment. Using concepts such as "BS", and "baby" and "toddler" are signs of impatience. And yes, this is my judgement of 'your' causality, your rebuttal welcome.

A quote to inspire your answer if you are moved to answer:

"Since there is no penance like patience, you must give anger no opportunity to arise. The Buddha said that by giving up anger, one will attain the irreversible stage." ~ Nagarjuna, The Good-Hearted Letter

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 11:51 pm

Another:

"Do your homework!"- Diebsby

Legge's Translation
"When we renounce learning we have no troubles."

Susuki's Translation
"Abandon learnedness, and you have no vexation."

Goddard's Translation
"Avoid learning if you would have no anxiety. "

I like this part too:
"But, oh, the difference, the desolation, the vastness, between ignorance and the limitless expression of the Dao."

You are similar to a toddler, because you have missed the way, apparently :)
But it's not so serious, DW.


"wacko translator"

Still rambling I see? :)

I quoted your version.
My reply to that conversation:

It's used BY "effortless action" is it?


"will" is not needing definition, nor something which could possibly be mixed in dualities/boundary confusion or whatever else, or is some unclear subject.

Nevertheless what I've said is true, you are free, without limitation, unbound.

Gently used with effortless action indeed, but not by nothing/nobody, not by infinite causality either, or santa-clause.

Oh, you're still currently the little person aren't you? And the little person lives in his fantasy world of causation/limitations as well as that whole Universe apparently 'behind' that. So in a way he is indeed bound as he says isn't he? Oh well, but it could be you!

Remember, this isn't a competition as jupiviv thought, you're just seemingly still a toddler.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon May 30, 2016 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 11:59 pm

movingalways wrote: is a sign of attachment.
Attachment to what?

Or instead answer this first if you like:

Are you certain of who/what you are and could you tell me?

What happens next if the piano dropped on you? (as I asked earlier)

movingalways wrote: "Since there is no penance like patience, you must give anger no opportunity to arise.


Already showing of toddler-like views.

You must do nothing, you ought to be "authentic" as you said, and that has apparently eluded you.
And only the ignorant even "ought to" do something.

Must not give it the opportunity to arise?
Sounds like a terribly fretful existence to live. Guarding against this and that. :)


movingalways wrote: Using concepts such as "BS", and "baby" and "toddler" are signs of impatience.


I have perfect patience. I am also perfectly free to call you what you currently ought to consider yourself: of toddler-like understanding, as of yet, "not raised".

You have not yet even denied it or thought to say "That is not true, I am indeed certain regarding these topics, etc".
Perhaps you aren't very confident.

movingalways wrote: The Buddha said that by giving up anger, one will attain the irreversible stage.


Could say the same about fear, effort, or desire.

There's no one correct way, nor any better version.

But there is one truth, and somehow, by your own word apparently you ran/flew by it (quickly), instead all the while thinking of versions.
Older kid here remember, situation is dealing with toddler.

Check for yourself what's true regarding what's been said on causality/liberation. Let me know what you realize to be the answer and if you're certain or not.

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 » Mon May 30, 2016 2:41 am

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
"Do your homework!"
The homework was to unlearn bad quoting.
"will" is not needing definition, nor something which could possibly be mixed in dualities/boundary confusion or whatever else, or is some unclear subject.
Everything has definition. If you can't describe or supply any, you have nothing to say. If you still speak, this stick will hit you thirty times. If you stay silent, the stick will hit you thirty times.
you're just seemingly still a toddler.
It has been enough, Seeker. you're just trolling now, erasing your own posts more than once, changing your own opinions at will, refusing to define any term, seemingly not capable of applying much reason and not showing some basic respect to others and so on. All perhaps because you think you are "free" to do so. Good luck with your nihilistic disposition of fake liberation but you're banned.

Nothing resting
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:53 am

Re: All you get without chocolate

Post by Nothing resting » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:54 am

Seeker, what is true to you? What is your true nature? Some of what your board mates say seems true. There is nothing. Free will is seen to be illusory at Maha Ati or stream entry.

Unboundedness is a quality of <blank> , that which is you. You are not; it is. It also is all-peace, all-inclusive.

Post Reply