Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?TheImmanent wrote:In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.
Bliss
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
No really, I AM a person
Between Suicides
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: No really, I AM a person
A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.Leyla Shen wrote:Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?TheImmanent wrote:In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.
Re: No really, I AM a person
TheImmanent wrote:A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.Leyla Shen wrote:Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?TheImmanent wrote:In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.
If existing in a "literal" sense means existing inherently then nothing exists in a literal sense. For that matter, nothing doesn't exist in a literal sense either.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: No really, I AM a person
Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.jupiviv wrote:TheImmanent wrote:A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not correctly understood when interpreted literally.Leyla Shen wrote:Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative?TheImmanent wrote:In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.
If existing in a "literal" sense means existing inherently then nothing exists in a literal sense. For that matter, nothing doesn't exist in a literal sense either.
Re: Bliss
A perspective is literally the axiom which dictates a person's interaction with his environment. So a perspective is not literally a perspective for the same reason which I assume you have used to prove that a person is not literally a person., i.e, it is a word that can be defined with more words.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.jupiviv wrote:A perspective is literally the axiom which dictates a person's interaction with his environment.
A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.So a perspective is not literally a perspective for the same reason which I assume you have used to prove that a person is not literally a person., i.e, it is a word that can be defined with more words.
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
Re: Bliss
When the truth is spoken truth is all that exists. When the truth is spoken, thoughts of being a person or an ego or a spirit or a soul do not exist. Therefore, when one speaks the truth, they are the truth and nothing but the truth, they are the light of the world.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
That is correct.movingalways wrote:When the truth is spoken truth is all that exists. When the truth is spoken, thoughts of being a person or an ego or a spirit or a soul do not exist. Therefore, when one speaks the truth, they are the truth and nothing but the truth, they are the light of the world.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Bliss
Not by my definition. A person is a human being, and human being is a perspective.Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.
Between Suicides
Re: Bliss
An axiom could be false. The claim of separate existence is not sufficient to render an idea false.TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.
A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.
The main purpose of enlightenment is to clarify the idea of the ego. To the extent such an idea is deluded, it will disappear with understanding.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
Ego, species, view. Words can be changed and yet the distinctions remain.Leyla Shen wrote:Not by my definition. A person is a human being, and human being is a perspective.Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.jupiviv wrote:An axiom could be false. The claim of separate existence is not sufficient to render an idea false.TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence.
The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.A perspective is a necessary premise for an ego, but an ego is not necessary in a perspective. The ego is a knot of convoluted ideas, and like a knot it disappears when it is unravelled, i.e., understood. A perspective does not disappear by being understood, for it is not an incorrect idea.
The main purpose of enlightenment is to clarify the idea of the ego. To the extent such an idea is deluded, it will disappear with understanding.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Bliss
A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.
Between Suicides
Re: Bliss
It's no more necessary than a person. These ideas are both indicators of different experiences/thoughts/opinions in a discussion, and can be deluded or wise ideas upon the person using them.TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion.
The very fact that things are interconnected proves that they are separate. Connection assumes separation.The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.
You are attached to a particular terminology regarding enlightenment, which prevents you from thinking more flexibly. Unfortunately, this is all too common among members on this forum.
Enlightenment always begins as an egotistic quest for happiness, but the ego gradually loses that desire along with its delusions.The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
Enlightened discussion, without ego-presence, is possible albeit rare in the world. Perspectives can exchange information, even if they are aware of the nature of reality.jupiviv wrote:It's no more necessary than a person. These ideas are both indicators of different experiences/thoughts/opinions in a discussion, and can be deluded or wise ideas upon the person using them.TheImmanent wrote:A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion.
The idea of a separate existence is the idea of being self-existent, i.e., a thing-in-itself. Interconnection demonstrates the opposite; mutual dependency of definition.The very fact that things are interconnected proves that they are separate. Connection assumes separation.The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.
That there is common.You are attached to a particular terminology regarding enlightenment, which prevents you from thinking more flexibly. Unfortunately, this is all too common among members on this forum.
Which constitutes the ego.Enlightenment always begins as an egotistic quest for happiness, but the ego gradually loses that desire along with its delusions.The ego may believe that enlightenment is instrumental to the ego. Thus subtly obscuring enlightenment.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
Yes it is. A person is not actually a self.Leyla Shen wrote:A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.
Re: Bliss
The quality of it is inversely proportionate to the proximity to "Enlightenment". The stronger the suffering, the stronger the bliss that follows it. The quantities are roughly equal regardless of proximity.Kunga wrote:Buddhas Bliss was permanent. The bliss I have experienced is impermanent. Is it the same bliss, only the quality and quantity of it relative to the proximity to Enlightenment ?
If the Buddha never suffers, perhaps he should call his state "contentment" instead of "bliss", because it can't be acutely enjoyable in the way that the bliss of one who suffers is enjoyable.
This raises the question: why try to eliminate suffering at all? It's a good question. It's innate that we avoid suffering to enhance our survival. It's an extremely selfish drive. But on the flip side, we ought to also value our suffering if we value ourselves and what we've grown into. We shouldn't derive others of the chance we had. Suffering and challenges are required for growth and learning. In a world without suffering, we'd all have about the mentality of little children.
And how about if we could experience bliss without suffering? What if we could accomplish it via drugs or biological/genetic engineering? Would it be meaningful? In my opinion, no. I think bliss a beautiful thing as a reward for doing the right thing or overcoming a challenge, but would find life meaningless without such challenges and problems.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.RZoo wrote:The quality of it is inversely proportionate to the proximity to "Enlightenment". The stronger the suffering, the stronger the bliss that follows it. The quantities are roughly equal regardless of proximity.Kunga wrote:Buddhas Bliss was permanent. The bliss I have experienced is impermanent. Is it the same bliss, only the quality and quantity of it relative to the proximity to Enlightenment ?
If the Buddha never suffers, perhaps he should call his state "contentment" instead of "bliss", because it can't be acutely enjoyable in the way that the bliss of one who suffers is enjoyable.
But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Bliss
LolTheImmanent wrote:Yes it is. A person is not actually a self.Leyla Shen wrote:A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.
I definitely come here for the insights, even when such insights do tend to reveal themselves in a form reminiscent of Monty Python's Flying Circus!
Between Suicides
Re: Bliss
Nonsense. The "positive" and the "negative" are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist except in relation to the other. At best, enlightenment can achieve a dilution of all emotions, a sort of contentment or zombie-like state where neither bliss nor pain is felt due to emotional detachment. More likely, it can achieve a feeling of moral superiority - "I am enlightened, I am a genius, I am pursuing a worthy cause in my life, etc!" This [delusion] could be the source of your bliss, but is about on par with (not better than) any other conviction/delusion, say, belief that God will grant you eternal happiness in the future, for instance, or belief that you have the moral right or obligation to murder people for fun.TheImmanent wrote:Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.
But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
The negative is merely the absence of the positive.RZoo wrote:Nonsense. The "positive" and the "negative" are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist except in relation to the other.TheImmanent wrote:Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every time some hindrance or opposition to its self-expression is removed, it is affected by great pleasure through expressing (what it believes is) its own nature, and every time some opposition to its self-expression appears, it feels that its positive emotions led to suffering. This is a conclusion by association.
But enlightenment is in perfect expression of its own nature, without any actual opposition. It is thus in full expression of the undiluted positive emotions (bliss/love), of a quality and quantity beyond what the ego ever knows.
In the absence of enlightenment.At best, enlightenment can achieve a dilution of all emotions, a sort of contentment or zombie-like state where neither bliss nor pain is felt due to emotional detachment. More likely, it can achieve a feeling of moral superiority - "I am enlightened, I am a genius, I am pursuing a worthy cause in my life, etc!" This [delusion] could be the source of your bliss, but is about on par with (not better than) any other conviction/delusion, say, belief that God will grant you eternal happiness in the future, for instance, or belief that you have the moral right or obligation to murder people for fun.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
You're more fortunate than you suspect.RZoo wrote:WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.
That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)
Re: Bliss
Good news from afar may bring you a welcome visitor.TheImmanent wrote:You're more fortunate than you suspect.RZoo wrote:WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.
That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
Nihilism is an ironic demonstration of a premise.