GENIUS FORUMS

bluerap wrote:It's getting old, coming here to see you spewing your premature "enlightenment" all over this place

Yeah...we already had our Cosmic Orgasm.....you're still in the moaning & groaning stage.....

from beginningless time the mind has been free of the two extremes.
inherent existence and total nonexistence.

I am a great liar because all things appear to be real while at the same time I realise they are not.

emptiness does not deny appearances.
appearances do not refute emptiness.

the union of appearance and emptiness.
interdependence.

astonishing.

bluerap, you know I've heard that a few times but haven't yet heard much I haven't heard so it's an odd thing for you to say, there is also nothing left to be known once everything is unknown, there is no "further" place to go after letting go of where to go, there is no prematurity in this, and I'm aware I'm vague, being specific is usually more vague, if anything there is much too much complexity going on where there shouldn't be, the more specific or complex you are, the further you go from grasping what is only understood simply, half the long time members I see hadn't cleared enough knowledge to know that their consciousness wasn't a result of their body/brain or to fully realize that their future sensual experiences were being decided upon simply through their emotions and the way they think, in other words age or experience is not a definitive indicator, especially not of how aware or empty one's mind is and there shouldn't be contention so why try to fight a war, is it out of that humility you mentioned? :b

Dennis no one said otherwise and Kunga you really are talking to yourself haha, cahoot I agree the boredom was still based on thoughts of past/future/familiarity and got replaced by wonder

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:being specific is usually more vague, if anything there is much too much complexity going on where there shouldn't be

Is that why you made that long running nearly unreadable paragraph with only comma's to separate the flow? Perhaps it's just you making things vague and complex? :-)

Anyway, what I wanted to ask is your opinion on the masculine/feminine terminology you might have come across at this forum. These are mostly psychological terms or perhaps to do with character as a whole. Some might say you, John, sound like typicaly feminine if age would not be considered: the lack of care of proper writing and definitions, pointing to "otherworldly" or metaphysical origins or commonalities, the excited postures, the focus on forming talk groups, the changeability in approach and so on.

This might be relevant or not but it's not like these traits are uncommon to have when we start life's journey in all seriousness, it's like we're still attached to mother's breast, still having this umbilical cord intact. The question is more if there's awareness of the forces at work even when one has arrived at the profound yet still challenging notions of "no further place to go" or "everything is known to be unknown".

From David's Exposition for the Advanced Mind.

Woman is one-dimensional. She knows nothing other than the steadily flowing stream of emotions. Anything other than this is inconceivable to her. In her heart of hearts, she finds reason and the dialectical process empty and meaningless. She has tremendous difficulty in holding within her mind two or more abstract ideas. She finds it difficult to stand back and assess the logical relationship between them. Hence she is ill-equipped to expose inconsistencies in her thinking. Whatever idea she happens to be entertaining at a particular moment absorbs her more or less completely, sealing her off from other ideas.

How would you respond to this criticism?

And your criticism is based on my writing? lol I'm spontaneous and erratic in speaking yes true, and the paragraph was easy enough to read, and it's been established that I both don't care much for exact definitions or grammar, and that I'm not very good at using them, albeit I could if I were to spend more time doing so.

To be perfectly honest it is the people that start asking for exact definitions on every thread that I think slow down the whole process, this if for a number of reasons. First is that there are no such thing as consistent definitions even if there are in dictionaries, every single word that isn't a simple one like "cup" is open to massive misinterpretation/misunderstanding, not only because everyone has a completely different idea come to mind when hearing words like "God" or even "dreaming", but also because no one seems to realize that almost every complex idea is based on delusion and is illogical.

The only reality, the only thing that exists, the only thing that can be known, is that we sleep, see a bunch of illusions/transient sensations we can't understand, wake up, and see a bunch of illusions/transient sensations we can't understand, I like to call this mysterious existence a dream. (which is absolutely empty of any knowledge besides that the world we see and the objects exist only in the seeing of them like in a dream, and that any knowledge based on how specifics work is delusion, such as people thinking we are made of atoms, that they know what water is, that they understand how a tree grows, that their own consciousness is a result of their brain, or any phenomena witnessed that requires more than one line of thinking)

I call it that for a reason which to me is obvious, when you die you go back to dreaming until you re-enter a dream due to attachment to form and are "reborn"...In other words, I'm vague and call it things like a dream, because literally, you are in the middle of a dream, you got "here" by dreaming, and when you leave you are still dreaming, most people just assign it "more" existence or "more" reality in comparison to what a dream is, for some unknown reason, probably because they are "here" now and can't see they are being bias because of that.

Another reason is that, if the posters were to simply to wait before asking those questions about definitions, or could "wait to put their hands up" they might find that whatever meanings were trying to be conveyed become clearer with more conversation rather than hindering that.

Now I know I definitely shouldn't do this as ego leads others not to be able to comprehend or accept the idea that someone can be honest without simply being self-righteous or egotistical, but I might as well anyway because it's necessary, I'm not wherever you think I may be, forget my age, I've realized the last stages, I'm in nirvana(It is a choice to re-attach, a choice to experience particular form, as you all also choose to feed illusions and live) and only ever since I transcended time, there is nothing left for me to do now but live and push, I have completely freed myself of past and future, and hence ignorance,delusion, and suffering, I now only experience the eternal wonder or amusement, there is nothing I haven't emptied myself of, there is nothing more for me to unlearn or let go of, it's not such a big deal or the hardest thing to "achieve" as you know.

Que defenses and contention, arising only from caught up in bs minds:
*constantly going to be erratic and without "caring", etc, because I'm usually posting in a time frame, some voice or another wanting my attention or to go somewhere.

and it's been established that I both don't care much for exact definitions or grammar, and that I'm not very good at using them, albeit I could if I were to spend more time doing so.

Care just can't be shrugged off.
We are constituted in care.
'don't care' is a condition where caring still shows up.

Realising emptiness John is a mere 'toe in the water' relative to 'what is'.

Buddha Nature, being the resolution of all points of view,
standing in command of all points of view,
of an incandescent, luminous 'seeing/being',
is of the nature 'exact definition',
otherwise all the tiny threads can't be untangled and set free.

What's what has to be sorted in a clear cut way.

Resorting to 'its a dream' and 'its a sense experience' and 'its God' as mantras is tantamount to laying in front of a steamroller as it rolls over you.
ouch!

(assessment)

as an option, why not communicate with bluerap on the matter.

Seeker, in our private conversation you were correct about another thing: I should abandon false modesty. I will no longer hide my brilliance and wisdom behind lies and gameplaying. I am no cyberpsychopath; like John Farhat, Brad Walker is Enlightened. An "internal" torturous briar patch of thought no longer haunts this reality. Instead, in the Void thought strikes like lightning: with a terrific power but still flitting.

"It's a dream" is because you guys aren't supposed to be clueless, if someone were clueless do I say the same thing? No, I learnt to lay into them with subtle oxymorons and questions that make them think and find profundity, short and easy.

Brad walker, its more shameful to distrust than to be deceived. I'm a cyber-sometimes-ripped-and-most-of-the-time-rushing-don't-give-a-fuck-about-your-silly-games-and-contention/grammar-path.

Think about this, do you see me bitching and whining about you guys lol, or do I act rather like myself and as if I'm talking to peers that aren't supposed to be clueless and looking for imagined contention.

"Buddha Nature, being the resolution of all points of view,
standing in command of all points of view,
of an incandescent, luminous 'seeing/being',
is of the nature 'exact definition',
otherwise all the tiny threads can't be untangled and set free."

Is this saying what I think it's saying? Elaborate on "Standing in command of all points of view,"

'Mere toe in the water relative to "what is"' maybe if your the common person, but for the living person, me or you, there is nothing more than "here" (apologize I'm not describing it well like a knower, I don't think I can describe it better than you can see it already, hence short words) and more awareness/more exploration of "not here", (that stuff that goes on in your mind when your eyes are closed, again won't try and describe it to avoid the moaning). Is there something I've missed? To me that encompasses everything in existence ever known seen or experienced, and it all sums up to a short word: "This". Or maybe "what is".

Btw can anyone think of a better description? Then why keep asking? Also, why keep thinking I'm talking about or thinking about something different to any of you based on my descriptions? It's not even possible for me to do so, we are all referring to the exact same what is.

(A customary plea at the end of every comment will now appear against contention, if you think someones gone wrong, simply point out and provide where or your own views and alternatives, otherwise you are just trolling)

Is this saying what I think it's saying? Elaborate on "Standing in command of all points of view,"

causes beget effects and these become causes ad infinitum.

emptiness is a recognition of this finite existence ie illusory-like.
a point of view or point in consciousness.

an effect of realising emptiness is those 'being that' or 'standing in that' tend to collect in herds and tell each other how amazing and wonderful each other is,
its completely ordinary for that to happen.

Causes beget effects implies separation of some kind between caused and effected.

I really do know nothing so weigh this, do you think cause and effect can exist without time?
We have both only imagined past, that I am writing in reply to what you have previously sent, and that belief is only due to the *what is/here/now* that appears to be changing, it is the unchanging you that hasn't been recognized, all forms are existing at once, there can be no change here, no cause and effect, it is only the following of different forms that alters.

To peek is to use consciousness. Consciousness can never go beyond itself while remaining conscious.


that is what makes it impossible to peek beyond consciousness.

This is an example of a logical truth which is impossible to refute. Unearthing logical truths of this kind and using them like rungs on a ladder to climb out of the world is the path to enlightenment.

David Quinn.

That's exactly why the eternity of non-being is unknown to you when conscious, you reply as if I implied you can experience without consciousness, which is a word, where did you get that from?

pointing out how an expression of Quinn is pristine clear,

not rambling.

lol yes, "you can only experience what you are conscious of", "what is, is encompassed by what is", pristine clear compared to ramblings, path of* enlightenment is taken up much easier than using complex logical investigations, for example: Give up, Let go

Give up, Let go

when have you done that?

there's a logical basis for that.

"where" ? lol, you won't see that I've let go in my forum writing, but all that is needed for is to completely rid yourself of everything but right here, then it's not really you acting is it, it "flows from the core of your being" when you forget.

No one is freed who does not free himself
No one is liberated who agrees to wear chains
No one is emptied who fills himself up

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:... I'm usually posting in a time frame, some voice or another wanting my attention or to go somewhere.

That much is obvious since your first post. That means your mind is not really knowing where it's dealing with. Your mind is your frame, your attention, your others wanting.

Seeker, I was curious why you didn't respond to Diebert's question about women.. you gave a lengthy response; were you just addressing his first statement? You've reiterated your stance on language and reality many times now, I think we all understand where you're coming from. But don't just become a one trick pony, saying the same thing in response to every topic is a sign of closed-mindedness.

Also, saying "lol" a lot in discussion is often an indication of a nervous tick; a subconscious self-validation tactic used by those who can't handle criticism very well, and/or don't believe in their stances as much as the think they do.

Back to the 'woman' topic, have you given it much thought yet? How do you think women generally compare to men, in regards to the capability of wisdom?

"And your criticism is based on my writing? lol I'm spontaneous and erratic in speaking yes true, and the paragraph was easy enough to read, and it's been established that I both don't care much for exact definitions or grammar, and that I'm not very good at using them, albeit I could if I were to spend more time doing it."

Diebert's criticism was based on the way I write I thought I gave a pretty detailed answer as to why I do so, but on your question about women and wisdom, I'm a bit of a sexist on the subject I guess, no offence to women I love them, but how many good philosophical discussions have I had with them? Barely any, it seems they concern themselves more with the mundane, Pam is the highest level one I've talked to yet, but maybe I'm just not engaging in enough conversation about it haha. Although on the whole personality type thing I am an intuitive kind of thinker I usually come to conclusions without using much reasoning which I'm sure you guys think is a bad thing but to me it's my best trait.

And I say lol a lot or haha because I've either just been using facebook or a lot of the time I'm on GF I'm laughing, I find a lot of the conversation on here pretty funny, and I agree bluerap I hate how much I've been repeating myself about this kind of thing lol literally I had said all of this in my first 100 comments on here, although I guess you would say that's my own fault for not putting enough time in to make what I'm saying clear in the first place :p

A fact to consider:

I find myself thinking, catching a few thoughts, or even coming up with ideas or things to write down in regards to philosophy, while half asleep/unaware I was doing so!

I'm assuming it's because when you have let go of everything your thoughts flow from the core without interference or distraction. When you become a witness through letting go, observing your actions and letting them flow, your mind knows exactly what to do and say, everyone here is completely aware that their thoughts aren't "theirs", nor are your actions coming from "you" right? Meaning this comment, every other one, your reactions to it, and your replies are all out of your control, being like an observer of "Tao mind"? I'm going somewhere with this.

In the lifetime of man, Spirit movement in sentient mind is conditioned upon memory of the past, or visualized thoughts of the future. All events experienced by men, beginning with birth, his parents indoctrinated conditioned upbringing, living, learning and death can be found in the melting pot of all human life. And although each individuals experience is different in exactness, relativism of human rhetorical thinking is the universal decrees of human thoughts. Objective visions are the sentient minds standard. Human feelings the minds subjective definition. The human soul is the retaining conscious of those objective visions and human feelings by thought continuum which avails the mind by memory. - jufa

Posted on Jun 10th, 2006 by jufa on the now defunct Gaia forum

There is no understanding to suffering, and defining it is not the clothing one wears, in thought for definition, because thoughts and feelings are a continuum of each feeding the other to survive. Defining is an attempt to understand that which is not definitive. Carnal thinking is that attempt -whatever carnal thinking is - to rationalize the plank which makes up the seesaw which carries on one end the good of man of thinking, and the other end the evil of thoughts spirits. When the plank is balanced the two are centered and blend to be what they were in the beginning - one. Becoming one means neither have power of influence upon the sentient mind because neither exist outside of the other. Why? because neither can possess individual power which exist in dualism. Their existence in thought analyzation and influential projection can no longer be found in either because they are no longer independent thinkers. Balance has made of two one new entity, and they are the thought of one which has no baseline for differentiation

To understand thought comes from the Source does not end suffering. Suffering is ended when joy enters upon the scene. But then even joy can resort to suffering when fear pops it head in the midst. How, does this happen? by remembrance. Thought remembered becomes thought feelings. Joy, pain and the fear of what occurred yesterday, therefore, keep suffering of loving and living alive and well.

As long as men live with the belief time, space, distance, and matter are the ultimate reality, they are entrenched in the foxhole of good and evil. Good and evil is the contoured structured of all sentient minds, imaginations, and thought analyzation. So men, never comprehending their purpose to catch the living vision of Spirit Consciousness within themselves, as those whom came before them failed to do, will never be able to balance their dual belief system, and set the standard for achieving freedom for those persons living now, and will come after them.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

If your feeling suffering at any time that isn't anything popping up but the past or future, the joy remains if neither of those interfere, and yes, time, distance, movement, body, brain, universe, death, rebirth, all illusions of consciousness, everything witnessed is not in control, this comment "it's" comment, so I guess you know we're pretty much talking to ourselves right now then?

Becoming one means letting go of everything, discrimination, bias and familiarity, past and future, when the mind is empty it's never been more open. Joy is a bad word, joy is never constant, wonder and mystery are tho similar I guess.

btw jufa, you do realize you are saying what you want to say in a complex way, when if you understand you could just say it simply, and people would still understand?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"And your criticism is based on my writing? lol I'm spontaneous and erratic in speaking yes true, and the paragraph was easy enough to read, and it's been established that I both don't care much for exact definitions or grammar, and that I'm not very good at using them, albeit I could if I were to spend more time doing it."

Diebert's criticism was based on the way I write I thought I gave a pretty detailed answer as to why I do so, but on your question about women and wisdom, I'm a bit of a sexist on the subject I guess, no offence to women I love them, but how many good philosophical discussions have I had with them? Barely any, it seems they concern themselves more with the mundane, Pam is the highest level one I've talked to yet, but maybe I'm just not engaging in enough conversation about it haha. Although on the whole personality type thing I am an intuitive kind of thinker I usually come to conclusions without using much reasoning which I'm sure you guys think is a bad thing but to me it's my best trait.

And I say lol a lot or haha because I've either just been using facebook or a lot of the time I'm on GF I'm laughing, I find a lot of the conversation on here pretty funny, and I agree bluerap I hate how much I've been repeating myself about this kind of thing lol literally I had said all of this in my first 100 comments on here, although I guess you would say that's my own fault for not putting enough time in to make what I'm saying clear in the first place :p

A fact to consider:

I find myself thinking, catching a few thoughts, or even coming up with ideas or things to write down in regards to philosophy, while half asleep/unaware I was doing so!

I'm assuming it's because when you have let go of everything your thoughts flow from the core without interference or distraction. When you become a witness through letting go, observing your actions and letting them flow, your mind knows exactly what to do and say, everyone here is completely aware that their thoughts aren't "theirs", nor are your actions coming from "you" right? Meaning this comment, every other one, your reactions to it, and your replies are all out of your control, being like an observer of "Tao mind"? I'm going somewhere with this.

Defense! Defense! Defense!

I was directly asked a question and replied to it twice, weren't you going off on a break to realize you can talk to people without being an idiot?

Otherwise I could just constantly point out whatever ego based on forum writing I think your showing through doing whatever your doing, which you display constantly and even realized you were displaying once, did you forget and have now come back to contend and act like a 12 year old with a grudge a little more? Or going to realize the only grudge/resentful thinking is on your side?

Again, do I bitch and whine and obsess on faults I can find to point out based on peoples posts? yelling cyberpsychopath and ego ego ego! lol seriously, only problems are created by the people who think there are problems.