Re: All you get without chocolate
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 7:25 pm
..
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
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.SeekerOfWisdom wrote: It seems that based on your recent writings, the four of you similarly share these wrong views
No, you are talking in pluralities, addressing "four of us". Nobody else.You literally introduced the herd concept and then said any concept of it is in my imagination.
Just stating that someone is wrong is meaningless. It's baffling you're even bringing up "toddlers" when you refuse to even talk!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'.
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"?You are wrong. Want to hear more reasons why? There are no doubt many.
Yes, got that the first time. No need for endless repeating. But why is it wrong?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.
But what does exist somewhere? All our words refer to relations and patterns you've thought about or have seen.Causality doesn't exist anywhere, except as a word referring to some relations or patterns you've thought about or seen;
You're just saying again you disagree, which is just another repeat.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.
Anything at all, actually. But that doesn't change a thing in this discussion unless you suggest that one should stop reasoning?Anything you know of Causality is known because it is realized, not through any other method.
So you're saying that ultimate truth is beyond words, concepts, ideas, falsehood, truth on perceived relations and patterns?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.
If you have something less "gibberish" to offer, please do.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.
From one of our PM's, your words: It is now impossible for me to suffer, I am not bound by anything, even living.Making things up again, since I do not believe I am not attached to my 'I'. (Whatever that means?)movingalways wrote:
Seeker, while you believe you are not attached to your 'I',
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?Also, am I not at the beginning of a thread explaining/showing what I mean?
The answer to that question is yes.
I should have posted the PM comment. Now I have.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.
You did not explain them, they were offered provocatively, like a mystery to be unwrapped.I had even explained my ent-like conversational skills in advance.
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.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.
Just the opposite, if you enter them in the spirit standing in what is true and reasoning why.These tendencies in conversation seem to be unwise ones.
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?'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".
Thank you, I have.If I'm not being explanatory enough feel free to ask.
Then offer them so that they can be reasoned with regarding what is true and what is not true.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.
Causality was brought to the table as a description of the "constancy of nature", the nature of reality, Brahman and the Infinite.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Anything you know of Causality is known because it is realized, not through any other method.Good, and how could you think Liberation means "bound by/of conditions".Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Anything at all, actually.
It's not liberation plus bound by body and cause and effect.
Near every post is that already. But more literal: here, from chapter two.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:In my view, you ought not to quote Lao Tzu.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Liberation requires the mind to open. "Not knowing constancy leads to disaster. Knowing constancy, the mind is open" (Lao Tzu).
Send me your version of the tao te ching.
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.Seeker wrote:From that quote constancy is the word constancy not the word "causality" nor any reference to your version of it.
Liberation from what? Liberation is meaningless without some opposite, some possibility of it being not the case.Liberation requires nothing. Liberation is liberation, what could liberation possibly require.
Coming to be liberated just means the same as "liberation". You're just playing word games here!Coming to be liberated might require some things though! :)
Feel free to examine the impersonal universe. LOLIt seems he's making himself see it in utterly everything in his personal 'Universe'!Quinn wrote:until you can "see" it in utterly everything in the Universe.
Nobody said it was complex, difficult or new. The difference is that Lisa could only conceive of biological, physical nature.True. But Lisa from the Simpsons might have said that!Quinn wrote:into the magnificent timelessness of Nature.
So then just write it! I'll help you: "know the sheer constancy of change". Which is really the same thing but less visualized.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.
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Things are caught up in any sense of self you can imagine to be the case.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:So you think "things can touch you"?in fantastical magical worlds where nothing can touch you.
In other words you think you're bound.
That's not Liberation.
So liberation requires ignorance and bondage. That's all I wanted to say about it in the context you provided.Ignorance of true nature, which is bondage.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Liberation from what?
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.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.
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.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.
But in practical terms, that doesn't mean shit, does it? The moment you'll engage situations, any situation, limitations will pop up.You are free to do as you please, bound by nothing. It's good news.
I do not live in a world where I am the single one object, the "Self"!True. But it's still a more creative, fertile world than one where you're the single one object, the "Self"!
Did you read that in the tao te ching?The wise do not instruct. They teach by setting example
Are you sure that's what happened?then go crazy quoting
I was unaware of this particular toddler convention, sorry.this one fuck-up.
In practical and real-life terms, yes it does, and there are absolutely no limitations. Only the egotistical/unwise/bound would believe so.But in practical terms, that doesn't mean shit, does it? The moment you'll engage situations, any situation, limitations will pop up.
You're talking to Laozi himself, what does it matter? (and yes it's in there).SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Did you read that in the tao te ching?The wise do not instruct. They teach by setting example
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!Are you sure that's what happened?then go crazy quoting
Effortless action. Which is a whole other cup of tea than saying your will is waiting to be used, unbound (free), and your own.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."
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.Sensitive about your conventions/etiquette/expectations.You made it clear enough when you mentioned mood/tone/energy. The same goes for language.Quote: movingalways:
What do you mean by 'irrationally sensitive?' 'child-like beings?'
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".)
Attachment to what?movingalways wrote: is a sign of attachment.
movingalways wrote: "Since there is no penance like patience, you must give anger no opportunity to arise.
movingalways wrote: Using concepts such as "BS", and "baby" and "toddler" are signs of impatience.
movingalways wrote: The Buddha said that by giving up anger, one will attain the irreversible stage.
The homework was to unlearn bad quoting.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"Do your homework!"
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."will" is not needing definition, nor something which could possibly be mixed in dualities/boundary confusion or whatever else, or is some unclear subject.
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.you're just seemingly still a toddler.