Qualities of a Spiritually Evolved Human

[Cahoot]

movingalways: If flowing-out feels so good, why does it stop to experience feelings of victim, malice and abuse?

Because it gets tired of, disillusioned with, its shiny new bliss thing when faith in shallow and childish feel-good insufficiently insulates it from all that does not fit with the faith.

Victim, malice, and abuse imply two. A division there. Bliss does not.

Bliss has no authority to dissolve the ignorance of making two, only the understanding of how two is made and of how to stop making two, wisdom of making the two one, has this authority. Feelings come and go: suffering. Only one remedy, the (gradual) cessation of feelings coming and going, the "walk" of wisdom.

UG speaks of love while manifesting crankiness and irritation. He is a perfect example of the effects of being stuck in the feeling realm of bi-polar bliss.

I see your confusion.

You’re trying hard to define bliss as a fleeting feeling on spiritual par with getting a surprise cookie in your lunch.

Bliss has no authority? What a strange expression.

Old U.G. was an ornery little cuss not much interested in buttering up egos. Men like that are often misunderstood.

(Your link didn’t work. Try this one.)
http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistg ... anadef.htm

[Pam Seeback]

In order to for the sake of?
(:

In order to for the sake of ?

:)

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
Feelings come and go: suffering. Only one remedy, the (gradual) cessation of feelings coming and going

But this will never happen or not in any general sense: thoughts like feelings come and go like a heart beat. Once that stops, they all would stop. Some even practice on this but that has little to do with wisdom. Of course the nature of thought and feeling does change profoundly but cessation is ultimately more about the "ignorance factory" which lies at the base of our experiencing but does not equal those experiences or our eventual responding. Ultimately nobody can undo cause and effect. So Pam, when you want to pull the root out or extinguish the fire: use the scalpel, not the butcher's knife. At times your writing appears as strong opposition to an (unknown) set of experiences, linked to your own suffering. And perhaps this cannot be avoided but it can be understood.

You must have missed my word (gradual) cessation of thought-feelings, which does come as an effect of being caused to have knowledge of why they are delusional. Is it not logical that once ignorance is discovered that it would removed by wisdom? It's not that I understand that one undoes cause and effect, but that cause and effect undoes itself. As for your interpretations of my writings, I interpret them as coming from compassionate intent, but a suggestion, which might help me (and perhaps you too): rather than making a general comment about my writings as you did above and in a previous thread, would it not be more beneficial to enter the specific writing in question and deal with what you see as error/confusion "head-on?"

[Pam Seeback]

cahoot: I see your confusion.

You’re trying hard to define bliss as a fleeting feeling on spiritual par with getting a surprise cookie in your lunch.

Bliss has no authority? What a strange expression.

Old U.G. was an ornery little cuss not much interested in buttering up egos. Men like that are often misunderstood.

(Your link didn’t work. Try this one.)
http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistg ... anadef.htm

I see your confusion. You're trying hard to see my definition of bliss as a fleeting feeling on spiritual par with getting a surprise cookie in my lunch. :-) If by bliss and peace you are referring to this brief wiki definition of nirvana: "the word literally means "blown out" (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished", then I agree, nirvana is bliss and peace.

My connection of bliss to the comings and goings of the feeling state is in response to Dennis' generation of bliss as mood. Can you show me specifically, in one of the Buddha's suttas where he speaks of Nirvana as being a state of bliss and peace?

[Pam Seeback]

Lox I don't know how to respond to your posts. Can you flesh them out a bit?

[Pam Seeback]

Still in the dark. :-)

[Kunga]

Then why is nobody so busy making a somebody? If flowing-out feels so good, why does it stop to experience feelings of victim, malice and abuse? And Kunga, if you care to answer, I ask you the same question.

1. Why is nobody so busy making a somebody ?

We are conditioned from the time we are born. It's only when you study spiritual truths, that you start to (gradually) unwind from all the conditioning....but it ain't easy....I think the more you realize what you are, it naturally dissolves ....but again...it is a gradual process, unless you are fortunate enough to snap out of the dream state quickly and finally end all attachments to this character building....


2.If "flowing-out" feels so good, why does it stop to experience feelings of victim, malice and abuse ?

Again...our conditioning, and the fact that we are humans with feelings. Bliss is also a feeling.
But the Bliss referred to, when one is Enlightened , is free from the emotional attachments produced by dualistic thinking. It's Blissful not to experience the stress that comes with attachments. It's Blissful not to be upset or have disturbing emotions, or any type of temporary (blissful) emotion, which only makes one's life a perpetual roller-coaster ride.

I hate roller-coasters !
Why don't you go on a roller-coaster (the scariest one available), and see if you still have any emotion left :)

Frankly, I am not ready to give up my emotions, but hopefully try to practice more control of them.
But there are times when it is better to just be real, than suppress your true feelings.
Sometimes it's best to be silent.
Sometimes it's best to speak your mind.
It all depends on the situation.
I think just being honest is truthful, whether the truth is pretty or not.
Lying is sometimes a good thing too...depending on the circumstance.
It's all about your intensions and motivation.

I'm still a human being.

[Pam Seeback]

Kunga I was touched by your from-the-heart analysis of bliss, human emotions, intentions and motivations. _/\_

[Cahoot]

cahoot: I see your confusion.

You’re trying hard to define bliss as a fleeting feeling on spiritual par with getting a surprise cookie in your lunch.

Bliss has no authority? What a strange expression.

Old U.G. was an ornery little cuss not much interested in buttering up egos. Men like that are often misunderstood.

(Your link didn’t work. Try this one.)
http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistg ... anadef.htm

I see your confusion. You're trying hard to see my definition of bliss as a fleeting feeling on spiritual par with getting a surprise cookie in my lunch. :-) If by bliss and peace you are referring to this brief wiki definition of nirvana: "the word literally means "blown out" (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished", then I agree, nirvana is bliss and peace.

My connection of bliss to the comings and goings of the feeling state is in response to Dennis' generation of bliss as mood. Can you show me specifically, in one of the Buddha's suttas where he speaks of Nirvana as being a state of bliss and peace?

Sure, for you and Dennis I exhumed Buddha and activated Google. Whew.

My approach when I was approaching was self-enquiry rather than Buddhist dharama study, though in the past decade I've read a bit here and there to gain a vocabulary to conceptualize into language what I've realized.

What do you know. There is a fleeting cookie Nirvana, the coming and the going of the feeling state.

"What is Nirvana? This is as when one who is hungry has peace and bliss after he has
Taken a little food. Such ease and bliss is also called Nirvana. It is as when an illness is cured, the
person gains peace and bliss. Such peace and bliss are also Nirvana. This is as when a person
with fear gains peace and bliss on reaching a refuge. Such peace and bliss are also Nirvana.
When a poor person obtains the seven jewels, he gains peace and bliss. Such peace and bliss
are also Nirvana. A person sees a bone and gains no greed. And this, too, is Nirvana."
"Such Nirvana cannot be termed" Great Nirvana". Why not? Because of the greed that
raises its head through hunger, illness, fear, or poverty. That is why we say that such Nirvana
is not Great Nirvana.

"The All-Buddha-Tathagata enters Nirvana. The nature of Nirvana has no Self, and no
Bliss; what there is is that which is Eternal and True. Thus, we speak of the retaining taints of
defilement. In the Buddhist doctrine and in the Buddhist Sangha are phases of discrimination;
the Tathagata ultimately enters Nirvana. “The Nirvana of sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and the
All-Buddha-Tathagataisall-equal,without any difference. For this reason, what the two vehicles
gain is not Great Nirvana. Why not? Because there are not there the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and
the Pure. When there exist the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure, we can speak of Great
Nirvana”.

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Chapter 29

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7mj_ ... e_2007.pdf

[Kunga]

http://vividlife.me/ultimate/wp-content ... -monks.jpg

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, I have not encountered the term "Great Nirvana", perhaps because I am attracted to Theravada rather than Mahayana thought. Goes to show how finding universal terminology to "fit" one's journey to enlightenment is a daunting, if not impossible task.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You must have missed my word (gradual) cessation of thought-feelings, which does come as an effect of being caused to have knowledge of why they are delusional. Is it not logical that once ignorance is discovered that it would removed by wisdom? It's not that I understand that one undoes cause and effect, but that cause and effect undoes itself.

But it's never "thought-feelings" as complex which permanently would cease, Pam! Perhaps it's possible to talk about that as middle part of a transformation like with the mountain-no-mountain riddle but there is no difference between biological or mental existence here: the rise of feelings, thoughts or mountains as causal web. Cause and effect cannot undo itself since cause and effect cannot be its own cause and therefore never its own undoing. Cause and effect is eternal truth: it's the background to all relative contemporary truth rising and setting. This means there cannot be any final state, any knowable or experimental state where this could stop. And when it would happen, there would not be remembrance of it in this world, like a deep sleep or death. And that would be a nihilist aim without possibility to function at all.

Perhaps the only interesting thing Maharshi mentioned underneath all hiss bliss blabbering is the idea of "I", the world, turning into "I-I", the ultimate truth. Humans are generally born perceiving all thought and feeling as "I" and that forms a presence of ignorance in all we experience. Truth tells us that experience has another nature (A~A) and this insight can be of a profound transformative nature. Thoughts and feelings will start to function differently but when people ask to describe the "qualities" of such human, not much can be said simply because the situation is fundamentally not that different from before: it's now only expressed and experienced more truthfully as in "knowing thyself".

[Dennis Mahar]

Packaging nothing in definition.

will you wear this costume for me?

geddit?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Packaging nothing in definition. Will you wear this costume for me? Geddit?

Yes, a drunken cross-dresser stumbling into some satori will still be a drunken cross-dresser, only now having the greatest Justification to remain buzzed.

[Cahoot]

Cahoot, I have not encountered the term "Great Nirvana", perhaps because I am attracted to Theravada rather than Mahayana thought. Goes to show how finding universal terminology to "fit" one's journey to enlightenment is a daunting, if not impossible task.

Well you know what they say … It’s all great.

(Though I have noticed that phrase tends to send some form-obsessed purists into a minor frenzy.)

[Dennis Mahar]

Packaging nothing in definition.

Like wearing a suit of clothes.
charade.

empty.
wonderful.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ah yes, that wonderful "luxury of the senses against the deserts of insignificance".

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: But it's never "thought-feelings" as complex which permanently would cease, Pam!

It is precisely "thought-feelings" as complex that must permanently cease if suffering is to permanently cease, Diebert!

Perhaps it's possible to talk about that as middle part of a transformation like with the mountain-no-mountain riddle but there is no difference between biological or mental existence here: the rise of feelings, thoughts or mountains as causal web.

It seems as if your understanding of the intellect is that it is eternally bound to feeling (biology). This is not my understanding. My understanding of the intellect is that while mind-matter (biology) is being caused to be "withdrawn" the intellect is caused to be conscience-attached, conscience having innate knowledge of non-biological causality.

Cause and effect cannot undo itself since cause and effect cannot be its own cause and therefore never its own undoing. Cause and effect is eternal truth: it's the background to all relative contemporary truth rising and setting.

I acknowledge that I used poor logic in expressing myself. What I should have said was that causality causes the withdrawal of the effects of the feeling state. Cause and effect is indeed eternal truth, cause and effect is indeed the background to all relative contemporary truth rising and setting. Moving on...

This means there cannot be any final state, any knowable or experimental state where this could stop. And when it would happen, there would not be remembrance of it in this world, like a deep sleep or death. And that would be a nihilist aim without possibility to function at all.

I do not envision a final state of causality, I envision causality without rising and setting into the relativity of thought-feelings. Why would an unmoving A=A relationship-with-one's-things be like a deep sleep or death? I am confused now about why your assertion for masculine intervention upon the feminine when it is the feminine that is feeling-aroused. Are not the "masculine" virtues of faith, honesty, integrity, logic, spirit, etc., not feeling-absent? Does not wisdom of the infinite arise without feelings being engaged? How is this feeling-absent engagement of wisdom nihilistic? Since I am writing this post without feeling-arousal, am I not functioning?

Perhaps the only interesting thing Maharshi mentioned underneath all hiss bliss blabbering is the idea of "I", the world, turning into "I-I", the ultimate truth. Humans are generally born perceiving all thought and feeling as "I" and that forms a presence of ignorance in all we experience. Truth tells us that experience has another nature (A~A) and this insight can be of a profound transformative nature. Thoughts and feelings will start to function differently but when people ask to describe the "qualities" of such human, not much can be said simply because the situation is fundamentally not that different from before: it's now only expressed and experienced more truthfully as in "knowing thyself".

Can you go into more detail as to how can one "know oneself" by way of eternal relativity arising and falling?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is precisely "thought-feelings" as complex that must permanently cease if suffering is to permanently cease, Diebert!

You appear to want to eridicate a version of suffering which is still yours and not the ignorance that is "I", the sentient being. And in that struggle you are still feeding the always craving self until death. Of course the thought-feelings will permanently cease then but ignorance does not die, not even then; it might live on otherwise.

It seems as if your understanding of the intellect is that it is eternally bound to feeling (biology). This is not my understanding. My understanding of the intellect is that while mind-matter (biology) is being caused to be "withdrawn" the intellect is caused to be conscience-attached, conscience having innate knowledge of non-biological causality.

There's no difference between all that. Causality rules biology, non-biology, conscience, feeling and intellect in exactly the same way, they are one realm. It's important that you don't try to create exeptions here. It's right there in that exception where your "I" will try to make home again. And then it's even harder to smoke out its ignorance!

What I should have said was that causality causes the withdrawal of the effects of the feeling state.

The feeling state is effect. The ignorance is what here attaches ("lands"). But the feelings and thoughts do not need it to be caused.

I do not envision a final state of causality, I envision causality without rising and setting into the relativity of thought-feelings.

You are still trying to separate something which cannot be separated. Rising and setting will necessarily remain part of causality, of change and feeling just as much as sunset and sunrise.

Does not wisdom of the infinite arise without feelings being engaged? How is this feeling-absent engagement of wisdom nihilistic? Since I am writing this post without feeling-arousal, am I not functioning?

There are emotions which revolve purely around the propagation of "I" and they cannot rise after the root is finally cut. But your body-mind always will contain feelings, no matter if you notice them or not. Most feelings occur in primitive forms outside consciousness, some because the mind deals better that way, others because they are not allowed to rise for some reason. Sometimes even good reasons.

Can you go into more detail as to how can one "know oneself" by way of eternal relativity arising and falling?

Such detail as meaning only arises properly in a given context: dialog, agreements, differences, will, contrast and so on. So first this context needs to be established. See above.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert:

You appear to want to eridicate a version of suffering which is still yours and not the ignorance that is "I", the sentient being. And in that struggle you are still feeding the always craving self until death. Of course the thought-feelings will permanently cease then but ignorance does not die, not even then; it might live on otherwise.

I'm glad you said "I appear to want." It is interesting that you perceive me as struggling to feed the always craving self when that is exactly how I perceive those who participate in political-social-cultural dialogues such as the recent "Videocy/Literacy."

There's no difference between all that. Causality rules biology, non-biology, conscience, feeling and intellect in exactly the same way, they are one realm. It's important that you don't try to create exeptions here. It's right there in that exception where your "I" will try to make home again. And then it's even harder to smoke out its ignorance!

I am not dividing Causality into separate realms but distinct causal truths.

There are emotions which revolve purely around the propagation of "I" and they cannot rise after the root is finally cut. But your body-mind always will contain feelings, no matter if you notice them or not. Most feelings occur in primitive forms outside consciousness, some because the mind deals better that way, others because they are not allowed to rise for some reason. Sometimes even good reasons.

I am not denying that my body-mind contains feelings "going way back to God knows where or when", they run in the background without benefit of memory-pain, thank God! What I am saying is this "heap of un-remembered feelings" can and does come to an end once their "presence" is exposed, using Buddhist thought, their cessation occurs during parinibbana.

Quote:movingalways:
Can you go into more detail as to how can one "know oneself" by way of eternal relativity arising and falling?

Such detail as meaning only arises properly in a given context: dialog, agreements, differences, will, contrast and so on. So first this context needs to be established. See above.

Am I correctly discerning what you are saying here? That one heap of feelings has a conversation with another heap of feelings and as a consequence of these two feeling heaps conversing, each feeling heap comes to "know itself" as a feeling heap? Why would anyone want to waste their time giving life to a feeling heap of unknown cause?

[Dennis Mahar]

Thicket of views.
packaging nothing into definition in order to.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm glad you said "I appear to want." It is interesting that you perceive me as struggling to feed the always craving self when that is exactly how I perceive those who participate in political-social-cultural dialogues such as the recent "Videocy/Literacy."

But you are, and that very (mis)understanding is a demonstration of your craving.

The Book of Void, Miyamoto Musashi:

What is called the spirit of the void is where there is nothing. It is not included in man's knowledge. Of course the void is nothingness. By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void.

People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void [does not exist/nothing—ed.]. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment. [...]

Until you realise the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order. However, if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.
Then you will come to think of things in a wide sense and, taking the void as the Way, you will see the Way as void.

In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is interesting that you perceive me as struggling to feed the always craving self when that is exactly how I perceive those who participate in political-social-cultural dialogues such as the recent "Videocy/Literacy."

While it's good to draw attention to essential topics of mind and existence, I think one can also use the mind to address other topics of interest which still relate to mind, psychology and our self in culture, social ordering and so on. The mind does not stop being curious or involved in understanding its context when it's getting to the root of ignorance. For some it actually will help to get a broader and deeper view of how they are functioning. But sure, these dialogues can also become distractions from the deepest and truest forms of philosophy although at the same time a discussion on for example the fundaments of Buddhism appears to provide quite a lot of fuel for ego and pretense these days. Actually it's rare we're having a proper discussion here right now using a few Eastern philosophical concepts. It's not academic though, the conversation tries to throw up challenges and question marks which is good.

What I am saying is this "heap of un-remembered feelings" can and does come to an end once their "presence" is exposed, using Buddhist thought, their cessation occurs during parinibbana.

It was not clear to me that you were talking about "un-remembered feelings" when you were mentioning earlier just "feelings" or "thought-feelings" as complex that you think must permanently cease. What do you mean exactly with "heap of un-remembered feelings"? And why would they end when brought into awareness? Awareness is good of course but no panacea for every force that ever shaped or formed our behavior, neurosis, character, etc. It then seems more important to make peace with them, knowing them, than trying to obliterate the lot of them.

That one heap of feelings has a conversation with another heap of feelings and as a consequence of these two feeling heaps conversing, each feeling heap comes to "know itself" as a feeling heap? Why would anyone want to waste their time giving life to a feeling heap of unknown cause?

That's not exactly what I was going for but then again: why not? The point is not to add more to the situation than that "heap" of mostly unknown causes and some known fleeting effects. All the uncertainty attached is great for challenging attachment. While all the added things only block whatever is there shining through already. You should not get in the way.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[removed - accidental doubling]

[Pam Seeback]

Quote: Pam:
I'm glad you said "I appear to want." It is interesting that you perceive me as struggling to feed the always craving self when that is exactly how I perceive those who participate in political-social-cultural dialogues such as the recent "Videocy/Literacy."

Leyla: But you are, and that very (mis)understanding is a demonstration of your craving.

I have come to see that there are no examples on this board of a craving-free existence; existence is synonymous with craving.

The Book of Void, Miyamoto Musashi:

Quote:
Leyla: What is called the spirit of the void is where there is nothing. It is not included in man's knowledge. Of course the void is nothingness. By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void.

People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void [does not exist/nothing—ed.]. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment. [...]

Until you realise the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order. However, if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.
Then you will come to think of things in a wide sense and, taking the void as the Way, you will see the Way as void.

In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness.

Musashi cannot say, as absolute truth, that in the void is virtue. He was conditioned to believe this as is every thinking being conditioned to believe in something. "Virtue" was his mental-spiritual framing of the void, his "sanity" house, if you will. No different than the "sanity house" of doctrines of Mind such as dependent origination. A while back, Dennis asked you what you were protecting and your answer was "philosophy." This struck a deep chord with me and caused me to see that we are all protecting our "sanity houses", be they of faith, virtue, logic, compassion, bliss, happiness, hatred, whatever. What choice do we have? Perhaps consciousness that becomes mentally ill has lost the ability to build a sanity house of name-and-form.

Perhaps true peace comes when we accept our sanity house for what it is: a necessary, blessed illusion.