GENIUS FORUMS

Utilitarianism or even henodism is not exactly a step up in this discussion!

Lets look at what people find broken in each other or in the systems they share. It's not agreed upon at all.

wood turns to dust over time.

disconsolate?

ego:
console me, console me, console me
consolation prize.

It could be 'I'm here' and 'you're there'.
for you it could be 'I'm there and 'you're here'.
OK, OK we're both here and there.

Where does living the Life show up?

out here!

being there out here.

If you hammer nails with your drill you will have a broken drill.

If you hammer nails with your drill you will have a broken drill.

suchness.
cry me a river.

You are talking about the possibility of drill as a breakdown mode in its 'life'.

I'm talking about something else.

I'm talking about the possibility of drill breaking down in its 'life' ain't brokenness.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Utilitarianism or even henodism is not exactly a step up in this discussion!

Lets look at what people find broken in each other or in the systems they share. It's not agreed upon at all.

ism?

Yeah, no worries. Let's go with giant-leaps-of-faithism and total up-in-the-fucking-headism instead.

I'm talking about the possibility of drill breaking down in its 'life' ain't brokenness.

Yeah, you created a straw man just so you could appear to be saying something wise.

What's broken?

The water heater!

The possibility for drill is breakdown and repair in its 'life'.
There's a possibility for 'handle with care' in order to avert unnecessary breakdowns for drill in its 'life'.

There's a possibility for Leyla to actually make sense one day.

And the very obvious possibility that you're a wanker who assumes he's teaching something not already understood.

There's a chance I could be affected by hostility and go looking for a consolation prize.

no chance duh

otherwise disposed.

Dennis Mahar wrote: You saw it like in a flash by the look of your exuberance.
You 'listened'.

Detachment.

The possibility is 'living life in a wonderful way'.

It looks drab when I write it.
Pye 'shows' it.

Yeah, how could I not have, it was reflected so well I could have shown that to a 15 year old and had them understand. I know I only gave a couple of small examples, but reflecting attachment as "stopping" and "hindrance" which causes "tension" that mounts to what we perceive as suffering perfectly fits every experience of suffering I can think of. From pain to crying to craving. A fresh reference for clinging, embedded and locked in for the future.

Dennis Mahar wrote: ego:
console me, console me, console me

That's a clear one too.

Going into Nietzsche and other great thinkers, there's only one access and that access is the context they speak out of.
That context is 'thoughts and reality'.

Pulling 'happy snaps' out of an album isn't where its at.

They're talking about the epistemology of a being reaching into 'past' as the ground of in order to.

how the being has it strung together

meaning 'held'

what goes unrecognised is what it might be holding.

giving rise to a public mood, 'bleak landscape'.

Familiarity and identity? Meaning held, a deception really. That grounding creating a bleak view, as opposed to stepping out of the set views and experiencing a mysterious reality as is. Living in a wonderful way, without anticipation.

Wonderful. Joy. Basking in the mystery of fairy dust as the world turns...

Detachment.

Empty head.

Nothin's broken.

Is that you Malice er Alice,
what was it?

Hm.

It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't.

Nothing's broken.

Or are you changing your mind now, and have more to say?

Is that you Malice er Alice,
what was it?

That doesn't signify 'brokenness'.
how could there be brokenness?

things break down (that ceases)
breakthru happens (this arises)
seamless.
suchness.

disconsolate?
affectivity/mood.

It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't.

Why question it?

Nothing's broken.

Get it?

Leyla Shen wrote: Let's go with giant-leaps-of-faithism and total up-in-the-fucking-headism instead.

The giant leap here is you not addressing the utilitarianism of your heady example of broken equipment: objects defined by strictly agreed upon functionality in a shared context.

Only when for example defining human nature medically, as object defined by strictly agreed upon health factors in a shared context, we get to an idea of something being wrong or not.

In the subjective world however there are no obivous agreed upon definitions or shared contexts. Beyond a moral point of view it's not clear what is meant by brokenness at all. But it's being experienced nevertheless which brought us to the question of suffering.

In the subjective world however there are no obivous agreed upon definitions or shared contexts. Beyond a moral point of view it's not clear what is meant by brokenness at all. But it's being experienced nevertheless which brought us to the question of suffering.

I don't experience "brokenness in the subjective world". So, it's up to you to define it.

Leyla Shen wrote:

In the subjective world however there are no obivous agreed upon definitions or shared contexts. Beyond a moral point of view it's not clear what is meant by brokenness at all. But it's being experienced nevertheless which brought us to the question of suffering.

I don't experience "brokenness in the subjective world". So, it's up to you to define it.

Good to hear you're never sad. Do you agree then with Seeker suddenly? A contextual framework of the discussion I already gave here.

No fucking way! That would put me on the same side as you and Dennis.

You'll have to wait til I finish work for a more substantial reply.

It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't.

Why question it?

Nothing's broken.

Get it?

The ground is philosophy.
emptiness is the theory of no-theory.
a philosophical argument.

arguing that phenomena lacks inherent existence.
suchness.

That's why it is called a Way.

To His Most High, Diebert the Omniscient:

SeekerofWisdom wrote:it's possible to live each day without any suffering


Diebert wrote: Buddha's first noble truth: "life means suffering".

This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

Now how do you live without being birthed, aging, pains, errors, unpleasant experiences starting or pleasant experiences ending? Cease experiencing what everyone else is experiencing? It cannot having been anything like "living each day" for Buddha as he just described that as essentially suffering.

Really, I’m not sure what the problem is. Maybe it’s in the subsequent teachings? The teaching here is that it is possible to live each day with courage and honour in the face of suffering (to live without delusions about life), not in some delusional euphoria built around the false notion that things don’t exist (for example) or that something in life is missing or lacking. It is from the latter condition that craving, clinging and attachment are born and develop; and this is quite distinct from any notion of “brokenness” and “fixing”. As if the Buddha—a wise and enlightened man—would never have fixed anything and lived, instead of a life of noble truth, one of ineffectual disorder and disaster. One doesn’t cling to a thing because it’s broken, one clings to it because of a real or imagined lack.

Hence, one living such a life lives in accordance with the nobility of that truth. Not clinging to some conceptual panacea about the nature of reality.

Leyla Shen wrote:To His Most High, Diebert the Omniscient

That title goes to the one being able to fully grasp and teach Buddh'a four noble truths, which is what you end up doing after all. And you even imply it's bloody obvious. Such a genius! Which is all fine but the title would be then more fitting for yourself! You're too modest, really. :-)

The teaching here is that it is possible to live each day with courage and honour in the face of suffering (to live without delusions about life)

Damn, then Gautama should have just said "live with courage and honor". Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble discussing damned causality and why people end up having delusions about life.

not in some delusional euphoria built around the false notion that things don’t exist (for example) or that something in life is missing or lacking.

You were attacking Dennis for saying the same thing: that nothing in life is missing or lacking ("broken" or "wrong").

It is from the latter condition that craving, clinging and attachment are born and develop;

Aren't you just reversing the whole of Buddhist literature which says that delusions are born from craving, clinging and attachment, and then progressing to agree with yourself? That's indeed easy!

this is quite distinct from any notion of “brokenness” and “fixing”.

This is not Dennis speaking. But he wrote that there's nothing to fix in the machinery (of existence?). But there's still right view, or just any view and its opposition. Still, that was another discussion.

One doesn’t cling to a thing because it’s broken, one clings to it because of a real or imagined lack.

The subject is Dukkha, suffering, stress. So the lack causes desire and desire leads to clinging if not released or given up. Which creates a feeding ground for suffering and ignorance.

Hence, one living such a life lives in accordance with the nobility of that truth. Not clinging to some conceptual panacea about the nature of reality.

Or clinging to anything else for that matter.