GENIUS FORUMS

You're just trying to aggrandise yourself in some 'higher moral ground' seeker.
wounded little fella.

to call you 'fuckin' idiot' was to push your button and see where you're at.

Vanity writ large.

Oh, and -- SEX.

Down girl, down.

Hang on, by that I didn't mean; I meant, oh hell...

Lol!

That's better! (((:

Leyla Shen wrote:If the self does not exist, neither does an insult.

The wise, being selfless, are never insulted;

You are mistaking the appearance of the human experience for 'self' which means 'me'. Insults go between humans every day, self still doesn't exist.

I'm assuming your second statement means "I'm wise", like I said before, have fun telling yourself that joke as many enjoy doing.

And Dennis, how does coming in to say the self does not exist have anything to do with a 'higher moral ground'?

Being able to discuss without competition is the only ground you can take that isn't a complete waste of time spent asserting ego.

I had a good laugh when you said you called some one a fucking idiot to 'see where they're at'.

As someone else once said to you, and as kunga stated, what do you think the people who are the basis for 'wise' like Buddha would think of such tactics?

It is also odd seeing as for you to make that statement you would have to have placed yourself on a higher ground, claiming to be above the perceived issue of the other.

Whatever happened to all that unconditional love and compassion you were claiming to experience a while ago? You are secretly a comedian perhaps?

As kunga pointed out 'big ego's' spend their time assuming another person is somehow beneath/below/behind them.

The truth we all know is that we are all very similar and spend our time doing a lot of exactly the same things, why on earth would anyone want to constantly compete and fret? Maybe we should just go off to war if we are going to be so ignorant.

No, you're an idiot; deliberately asserting you don't exist as if you are saying something wise.. That's the truth, I'm afraid.

The truth we all know is that we [...]

Who?

Wake up.

The question was asked about the nature of self, that's why an answer was given.

You wake up, you are just clinging to an incorrect word as if that has anything to do with the fact that we exist. 'Self' is simply the wrong word, it means 'me'/'mine', delusional.

Also, the use of the word being correct or incorrect has nothing to do with my idiocy, I'm only like an idiot, as I do not hold that I have any depth of knowledge on any subject as you may.

Oh, I get it now!

I'm clinging to the word "self" as if it exists, when only "we" and "us" exist!

Wow. Such wisdom. Why didn't me see it before?

We are talking about what the word refers to, not if the word exists, thought that was pretty obvious.

Provocative photo not doing it for you anymore?

LOL, I'm so glad I decided to look at the first page of this thread and discover your attitude wasn't reserved for me.

A paragraph by orenholt followed by:

Leyla Shen wrote:Jesus fucking Christ.

She needs some serious discipline, Dan.

You really should give her the boot.

How could a person be so blind to think they know what they are talking about when they say the word 'enlightenment' if their response to a philosophical comment was this? You are almost as bad as Diebert. The kind of person to give the same reply "You are an ignorant idiot.... and I'm not" over and over to many people.

What, you hate your life and the way you look and so your just a bitch to whoever you come to odds with? Get a grip shen, so egotistical.

I'd love to see that happen in real life, someone says something, you reply "Fucking christ your an idiot, you should get booted', followed by, "I'm enlightened".

I hope you know you are just lying to yourself and really need to change otherwise you will go through a lot of suffering, insults are a result of resentment, resentment cannot exist without suffering, resentment is suffering, I hope whoever else thinks it is a good idea to put other people down out of the blue reads this also.

Putting a poster on every comment of mine, it reads:

"Diebert, Leyla, Dennis, call themselves wise, yet egotistically think others are beneath them while insulting them daily: admitted and proven fact. A notice for users, so they may know in advance to avoid these wise people. "

self exists seeker,
the delusion is that it exists from its own side.
the delusion is that it exists inherently.

if you do neti, neti properly,
not that, not that and pull it apart,
at the bottom there is an always/already presence pervading.
you don't disappear or anything radical like that.

if there were no self there wouldn't be causality, there'd be no possibility of delusion or enlightenment.

that's why the Buddha's philosophy is a philosophy of activity.
this ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises.

the goal of the Buddha is to set in train the causes that attain 'radiant mind'.
a possibility for self.

Buddhahood is a form of selfhood.

[rolls her eyes]

You'll get about as close to me in "real life" as you are able to here.

I'm sure you and Kunga are very happy together, enlightened seeker of wisdom...

Sometimes I wish I was a python, so I could yawn the way I really feel like I want to...

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You are almost as bad as Diebert.

Ouch! That's so low... now I'm being upheld as the golden standard of badness. Snake on a stick!

Leyla,

The "Unpredictable/Unkowable". The self and the Real arise together in Lacan in a very particular (articulated!) form.

Is this straight in the Lacanian sense?

The Real order is undifferentiated, absence of self boundaries.

The Imaginary order is the subject/object split.

The Symbolic order is identification with the subject/object split upon which language is built.

Selfing is then the project.
self-defense and self-expansion.

Dennis wrote:

"If there were no self"


Saying there is no self is not equal to saying there is no person or conscious experience, just that there is no me. I was under the impression neti neti neti was 'not that' in the sense of 'not me".

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Ouch! That's so low... now I'm being upheld as the golden standard of badness. Snake on a stick!

But you are Diebert, do you know how many times I could quote you with the exact same demeaning comment of the nature "Your ignorant I'm not", or at least 'your ignorant' with the obvious implication that your not, as a first comment in response to almost everyone on here? I would be surprised to find a conversation in which you began communicating with someone without first stating that.

seeker,
your argument is there is no self.

I assign you an identity 'fucking idiot' as a try on.
it lands in your 'listening' as a hot potato.
you react in a self-defense mode and launch attacks from that 'listening'.
you are adversely affected which is the activity of selfing.

If your 'listening' was neti, neti the affectivity experience would have been of the nature ' like water off a duck's back'.

There are 2 interwoven truths of phenomenal reality.
self and the ultimate reality of self.

Recognition of both and denial of neither is 'where it's at'.

narcissus is 'affection for self'
we've all got that one buddy.
no hard feelings OK.

You do realize some people are actually interested in discussing? Not everyone is talking only to assert themselves as better than the other person or to take a psychological guess as to their character and purposefully disrespect them when coming to odds.

Whether you believe it or not, I could go the next 1000 comments only discussing and trying to achieve in-depth communication. (Clearly not with you)

Or is that just an act? I'm on a forum about discussion of enlightenment/ultimate reality and faking the intention to discuss the actual topics?

'I bet you 20 bucks' you wouldn't speak like that in an ordinary situation, or really anywhere, proving that it is an internet thing.

There you go again.
complaining.
In Dan's thread you complain about some people in another room arguing.

OK, you had an experience of emptiness or 'Beginner's Mind.

The circumstance of Beginner's Mind is such that it contains 'Idealistic Thinking'.

That condition complains about people not being this or that and is forever haranguing others.
That people should conform to an Ideal.
Forget it.

What others are doing is none of your business.
Your business is to deepen the experience of emptiness enabling radiance of mind.

Quinn's piece 'Mastering Perspective' might help.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Ouch! That's so low... now I'm being upheld as the golden standard of badness. Snake on a stick!

But you are Diebert, do you know how many times I could quote you with the exact same demeaning comment of the nature "Your ignorant I'm not", or at least 'your ignorant' with the obvious implication that your not, as a first comment in response to almost everyone on here? I would be surprised to find a conversation in which you began communicating with someone without first stating that.

It's "you're" :)

The purposeful fuckery is clear because you also made a few mistakes on that last comment on the other thread and I know you don't care.

Dennis Mahar wrote: What others are doing is none of your business.
Your business is to deepen the experience of emptiness enabling radiance of mind.

That's good, then guessing as to the business of others is something we agree does not fit with what is essentially a solitary path.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The purposeful fuckery is clear because you also made a few mistakes on that last comment on the other thread and I know you don't care.

But I do care if I'm being lazy; it reflects a lazy mind. Let me know what my mistakes were. And yes, my fuckery is clearly purposeful.