GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:your clinging to an idea you've probably heard since you were 5, you wrote it, and so it's true.

What...that the brain exists ? It exists from causes and conditions. It's not clinging to an idea, anymore than clinging to whatever idea floats your boat. Navigation in this world of phenomena, you understand phenomena for what it is...phenomena...emptiness....causes and conditions....

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:you've never done a study on existence after bodily death directly?

You mean after I die, do a study of life after death ? Well....there's a lot written about NDE. I've never experienced a NDE. But to those that have , it was real for them. Other than that, I don't know. I've also read about advanced Buddhist practices, [phowa] that at the time of death, you can direct your consciousness into another body. I don't regard those people that know about such things as crazy or delusional, or liars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phowa

Phowa has many different meanings; in Tibetan it means "transferring consciousness." The highest form is known as the phowa of the dharmakaya which is meditation on the great perfection. When you do Dzogchen meditation, there's no need to transfer anything, because there's nothing to transfer, no place to transfer it, nor anyone to do it. That's the highest, and greatest phowa practice.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:How about a direct study on the brain as the cause of existence?

The brain exists because of causes and conditions...like everything else. No need to study much to figure that out.

As far as THE CAUSE FOR EXISTENCE goes......I don't know...I wish I did !
In Buddhism there is no first cause. No creator God that started it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Yeah,
always a story about supply.

driven.
like tumbleweeds across a prairie in a full force gale.

You need to go back to Hegel, who criticised the notion of this type of "being" as immediacy. Whereas being as the unity "ground and existence" would shine the light on the illusory nature of this clearly existing "non-existence".

And you know, from what I can tell, this is not at all far off from what many conceive as buddhist enlightenment.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Where's flippen-well australia Leyla

near Caulfield area?

No. It's in the middle of the Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans.

(:

that's where the old Org used to be in the 80's.

Hamish ran HCO.

Some years before my time, being circa... '85/6. Russell Street.

You go that far back?

Kunga wrote:
What...that the brain exists ? It exists from causes and conditions. It's not clinging to an idea, anymore than clinging to whatever idea floats your boat. Navigation in this world of phenomena, you understand phenomena for what it is...phenomena...emptiness....causes and conditions....

People assume you don't know what you're talking about because it really looks that way.

Kunga wrote: You mean after I die, do a study of life after death ? Well....there's a lot written about NDE. I've never experienced a NDE. But to those that have , it was real for them. Other than that, I don't know. I've also read about advanced Buddhist practices, [phowa] that at the time of death, you can direct your consciousness into another body. I don't regard those people that know about such things as crazy or delusional, or liars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phowa

Phowa has many different meanings; in Tibetan it means "transferring consciousness." The highest form is known as the phowa of the dharmakaya which is meditation on the great perfection. When you do Dzogchen meditation, there's no need to transfer anything, because there's nothing to transfer, no place to transfer it, nor anyone to do it. That's the highest, and greatest phowa practice.

I don't regard them as crazy either, though you are pretty big on beliefs.

Kunga wrote:
The brain exists because of causes and conditions...like everything else. No need to study much to figure that out.

As far as THE CAUSE FOR EXISTENCE goes......I don't know...I wish I did !
In Buddhism there is no first cause. No creator God that started it.

Really looks like you don't know what you're talking about.

You go that far back?

Yeah, I'm older than god.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Really looks like you don't know what you're talking about.

Could it be that you don't know what I'm talking about ?

I've explained everything very simply and clear.

What is it you don't understand ?

You need to go back to Hegel, who criticised the notion of this type of "being" as immediacy.

Whether he criticises it or not doesn't matter.
We're always concerned about supply, hankering after desirable objects, figuring out a winning formula to get supply.

Whereas being as the unity "ground and existence" would shine the light on the illusory nature of this clearly existing "non-existence".

He supplied a concept.
So what?

So what?

It depends on what you value. So, if you value you nothing, then nothing. About $50k worth of it. (:

Whereas being as the unity "ground and existence" would shine the light on the illusory nature of this clearly existing "non-existence".

Illusory to who?
Existing non-existence to who?

Only to the being who values truth as ground (principle) for existence and therefore being; which doesn't include you, obviously!

Are you saying it depends?

that it depends on causes/conditions?

Why don't you just tell me what I'm saying? You know I'll correct you if you get it wrong.

Go on, give it a good shot!

You are saying 'dependent arising'.

Ok. But what distinction am I drawing between that and what you said?

I say dependent arising
You say dependent arising

perfect match.

there is no other distinction of value.

If you want something else.

40 love
game over
take a shower
get a new racket.

Well, it's not really about what I want so much as it is a matter of truthfulness.

For instance, you said, "perfect match" when it's clear in our dialogue that is not the case.

Either your puns are a cover for your inadequacies, or, like an automaton, you are simply caused to identify something as what it is not (notwithstanding the other harmony you love to whistle like Happy the dwarf: "a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't).

I recognise it.

You either ignore it, or don't recognise.

Either way,

40 love
game over
take a shower
get a new racket.

Hi-ho, hi-ho...

from what I can tell you recognise dependent arising.
there is no other distinction that 'gets it' or holds value.

Indeed I do, Dennis. Indeed, I do.

But if I were you, I wouldn't be so sure!

OK Mum

Leyla Shen wrote:Either your puns are a cover for your inadequacies, or, like an automaton, you are simply caused to identify something as what it is not (notwithstanding the other harmony you love to whistle like Happy the dwarf: "a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't).

Don't tell me you didn't know already the answer to that. Dennis (well all things-ego) has his existence wrapped up out of his own sight in a cloud of denials, annihilation and hypnotic reflections. It's the big magician's trick: how to disappear in ones own eyes -- "the forgiveness we crave" -- and believe it by ritual repetition? It has to be repeated, almost compulsive, here and elsewhere since the whole spell relies on it. Like the evangelical saving Jesus. There a motive breaking through! The "for what" and the "to what end" explained in a nutshell.

Toothless tiger.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

...no meaning is possible without thought.

Absence of thought, absence of meaning.
you make the meaning.

the same distinction is in the bible and other old stories.

Paradise or Radiant Being and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge or stoopid arse thinking.
If you don't get it you don't get it.


listen Pam,
emptiness recognition is grokked independently.
if there is stuff goin' down in the worldliness of the world you have aversion, preference for/ or prejudice against.
Should I give a shit.
Should my bliss be wrecked by that.

That you say that your bliss can be wrecked indicates that your bliss is not the attainment of the birthless and deathless, which is my definition of abiding in emptiness. What caused you to believe that I have an aversion or preference for or prejudice against the worldliness of the world?

Whatever arises dependently and dependent arising itself,
peaceful process,
couldn't be otherwise.
bliss.
radical shift in perception.

“Dennis” is far too one-dimensional to be human, Diebert! Moreover, he is what he has always claimed: non-existent, a script... “empty” and “timeless”. The demon who liveth only in the midst of corruption.

Use him wisely, for in his every word lies the confession.

Lo! among men a Mephistopheles, cometh upon us to claim the souls of the damned!

(:

The new racket is Shakespeare?