GENIUS FORUMS

seeker,
emptiness refutes self-nature only.
unless things were phenomenally real an explication of their nature wouldn't be required.

Once the ontology is sorted out.

'smash on 49' is dependent arising, cannot be refuted, to state otherwise involves an infinite regress.

'smash on 49' is suchness, neither good or bad, cannot be refuted, to state good or bad involves an infinite regress.

keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel.

Emptiness doesn't 'refute' any concept.

When you admit it isn't something you realize conceptually, but something you 'see', then we can talk about it.
I often hear a bunch of Leyla's talking about one idea or another that may sound obvious to them,
yet failing completely to relate it in the slightest to the only thing anyone is actually ever referring to- the experience of those various 'appearances' mentioned before.
When you talk about dependent origination you are talking about those appearances. When you talk about emptiness, reality, self or not-self, non-attachment, enlightenment, the body, the world, keeping your eyes on the road.
Each and every single time you are referring only these appearances and nothing else. Agreed?

And of course they are real as they've ever been.

Emptiness doesn't 'refute' any concept.

is that a refute?

Hey, Diebert. Do you think he's suggesting there's a world "out there" than can't be denied?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Emptiness doesn't 'refute' any concept.

When you admit it isn't something you realize conceptually, but something you 'see', then we can talk about it.
I often hear a bunch of Leyla's talking about one idea or another that may sound obvious to them,
yet failing completely to relate it in the slightest to the only thing anyone is actually ever referring to- the experience of those various 'appearances' mentioned before.
When you talk about dependent origination you are talking about those appearances. When you talk about emptiness, reality, self or not-self, non-attachment, enlightenment, the body, the world, keeping your eyes on the road.
Each and every single time you are referring only these appearances and nothing else. Agreed?

And of course they are real as they've ever been.

Like, an undeniable world of experience which exists without experiencers?

There and existing as much as always. Not sure what 'out there' means or the alternative 'in here'.

Leyla you never actually say anything, you just question everything no matter how obvious. You don't even know what 'reality' is, you think it is a reference to an independently existing world of fantasy. Never do you express any personal view or indicate as to the meaning of the words you use.

If you were able to form a sentence that actually had meaning you might be able to explain your own view rather than just avoid everything by deflecting.
Or to quote one example from you, "freedom of movement in truth"...moving in what?

All the while asserting your own intelligence, unaware you don't actually know anything.
A sane person realizes their previous insanity in clinging to meaningless ideas and concepts. Liberation is about absence of delusions about what is (right there).

Another example of your inability to elaborate meaningfully on anything, from your last post, you put three quotes without writing a single word as to your intention or thoughts.
Then when Orenholt replied, you said she should get the boot.
All without writing a single word of your own in relation to your own thread.
You are intelligent and correct by default it seems, too much princess-ing has gotten to you.

Dennis Mahar wrote: is that a refute?

Yes, it's a refute of your inability to speak. How could one not refute a 5 word sentence "emptiness refutes self-nature only" repeated for literally the 100th time if you are wholly unwilling to elaborate?
Save to imply your assertions don't require elaboration, because causes/conditions.

"It doesn't matter that I'm also asserting reality as a "reflection/representation" while twenty times refusing to admit that I asserted such a thing, what matters is that it's conditional".

But don't worry, these are just my survival options, ( as I was being threatened with death by a 4 word rhetorical question) nothing here is true, none of these are direct quotes from you, I'm not referring to any unexplained repetitions you use. It's all just me caring to much, making it up.

I forgot to mention 80% of what you write is based on phrases people have not been using for at least the last 20 years.

seeker,

what matters is that it's conditional

aha, you're refuting inherent existence.

why make it look like scrambled eggs.

Don't you get it, Dennis? He's not making it look like scrambled eggs, he is scrambled eggs (since that's your direct experience, expressed metaphorically) and there's nothing you can do to change it; except maybe eat him.

That was a quote of yourself refuting inherent existence.

you mean 'eat' the projection Leyla?

:)

I think it's evident by now that, in a nutshell, SNw really is just saying we're all human. He thinks that clinging to conceptual notions (which pretty much covers everything abstract) is deluded and all one has to do to become enlightened is to cease clinging to the abstract.

He doesn't value thinking at all and believes it's ultimately deluded.

His presence on this forum and on the subject of truth and enlightenment resolves down to that, as he so often expresses.

I mean, you know, you could probably have a great chat over coffee or beer with the bloke, but that's where it ends.

You nailed it, clinging to conceptual notions is deluded, and all one has to do to become enlightened is cease clinging. Perfect.

Also I'd probably just get a water and I'm not much for chatting, as you can tell. I agree my view does boil down to a quick end and don't claim to hold much knowledge at all.
I can't go much further than saying reality is what you experience every day and can't be described better than one can see it. Most attempts at description or conceptual understanding usually end up creating imaginary boundaries/distinctions/beliefs.

I mean, you know, you could probably have a great chat over coffee or beer with the bloke, but that's where it ends.

as long as he shouts the coffee and doesn't shout the scrambled eggs.

You two...

The true nature of religion is to control emotions.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:So,ultimately reality (emptiness) is a bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc,

Yes that's what we call reality, what we experience.

Seeker, you have the perhaps unusual outlook of having obtained a "deconstructed" view on the world: slicing every form up in separate sense experiences and because you couldn't slice those up further you have found some supposed atom of existence and abide with it. John, correct me if this doesn't represent your view.

It's unusual to me in the sense that average seekers would usually first address the relativity of sensual experiencing: fleeting as they are. Always changing, developing, sometimes losing it and impossible to capture really not even in memories very well. But it are usually forms which seem more "real" to us since they appear more consistent, can be shared, have more meanings and connections: like a memory, a word, a concept, an image, etc. This is where our conceptual "world" arises. Sense data is senseless in terms of reality.

So here's the question Seeker, why call any sense data "reality" while it doesn't inform us about anything at all? It's basically a more raw, more fleeting sensation compared to shapes and forms. But there's no real difference, even senses are forms appearing but processed at some subconscious level.

This is the confusion: you call everything "appearance" which is fine by me: the appearance of sense, form and formlessness. They all come and go. They all have causes and effects. But it doesn't address the question of reality at all. It seems more often to avoid the questions but sticking with this toy of deconstruction of experiences. You can take things apart but can you put them back together again? The wise does both!

We're back to the old criticisms which were offered to you in the past: it's about making proper distinctions, this enables one to discern what's going on, with all our perceptive abilities. Instead your position seems entirely nihilistic: you're using your insight to blur and destroy the relevance of everything. That's not liberation! It's a distinct desire (for un-making) which you are not admitting is a desire. It's a distinct form of suffering which you're not admitting is suffering.

ewil wrote:The true nature of religion is to control emotions.

From this would you then conclude that until emptiness is realized, identity latching onto the transitory phenomena of emotions obscures awareness with the delusion of attachment, thus making attachment itself, rather than the phenomena (emotions) associated with any particular form (human) the dependent identity of self. Rather than suppressing emotion, controlling would then be defined as awareness spontaneously disassociating identity from delusion.

Seeker, would you say that perpetual experience of emptiness is enlightenment.

And would you say that intellectual contemplation upon the experience of emptiness that is realized in the present moment, though separating mind from the present due to the nature of dualistic thought much like physiological limitations of nerves and synapses separate sensory awareness from the actual phenomena by fractions of a second … would you say that intellectual contemplation upon the experience of emptiness as a path to experiencing emptiness directly in the present could also be one of the alleged 84,000 teachings of Buddha?

If so, then this would make a strong case as a reason for the similarity, there for any to witness, in the archery master and the tea master,

a similarity in perceiving that could also be called awareness of intrinsic nature.

What about Cahoot and the water heater for the travel trailer?

Is it not a possibility for relationship?
Is what the archer brings to the bow and the drinker brings to the teacup in any way different to what Cahoot brings to the water heater except as a mode of beingness?

Are there fixed 'grounds' for relationship like a recipe or possibilities for relationship?

What about the possibility of 'grateful for being' as an orientation toward the occuring moments as they occur.

Recognising suchness (nothing broken) generates 'grateful for being' in the occuring moments.

curious behaviour.

a simple activity like opening and shutting a door can occur as a source of wonder,
a profound experience of emptiness,

slamming the door indescribably joyful
leaving the door ajar a delight

the possibilities for door amazing

doors become so familiar and are so taken for granted that passing thru' a door doesn't occur in the moment that a door was passed thru'.

I was in the acquaintance of a guy Peter who was diagnosed with cancer and set on the path of a treatment protocol.
I liked the guy 'cos he dug the saxophone and all that entails.
When he 'heard' about the cancer he began collecting clocks.
He had in the order of 3,000 of them before he passed.
He lived in his domain of ticking clocks and once a week sallied forth in his old humber to visit graveyards about the district to just sit.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:So suffering is the result of being "immersed in the experience at hand" which leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are permanent, even though one is experiencing phenomena as impermanent, and it follows from this that the solution to suffering and the truth of emptiness is to realise that what you see isn’t there? Tell me, what is it that such a one sees?

Hey, I thought that I was the one asking questions here :-) Anyway, to claim experiencing this or that I don't find that interesting. The challenge is here how to communicate and express the various insights on the topic. These insights and the ability to see into the subject go hand in hand but also can facilitate one another. Especially how to describe this "immersion" as well as any result with regards to experiencing life. With Seeker I started with some Buddhist phrasings as canvas to have this conversation on. For example:

• And what does he discern as it has come to be? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling ... perception ... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness - Saṃyutta Nikāya 22:5

What you see isn't just "there" because it would be more truthfully to see with full awareness that "this has come to be" and "this is the origination" and "this is the cessation". But there's still some work to do to get this better in focus with language that means something to all the participants.

Then I offer it to you as this: that "full awareness that... [etc]" (or non-immersion) is recognition of the relation between self-identity and the temporality of form in general and in particular. What one is comes into being (identified as and by) what one is not. In that sense, the self (and consciousness) is clearly not-every thing else. It's a fantastic dilemma! He wants everything without merging and without being separate!

Immersion, really, is this strange self-defeating desire, I think.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Seeker, you have the perhaps unusual outlook of having obtained a "deconstructed" view on the world: slicing every form up in separate sense experiences and because you couldn't slice those up further you have found some supposed atom of existence and abide with it. John, correct me if this doesn't represent your view.

I'm taking the term 'atom' as a reference to a fundamental or essential nature of things?
Yes I would say our experiences, the arising and fading of forms, or the 'seemings'/imaginations we see form from the darkness, are all of the same essential nature and I take this 'mind' experience (these all being meaningless referential terms) as the essence of what is.
But I definitely wouldn't support 'slicing every form up in separate sense experiences', when I say 'sights/sounds/etc' I'm only blatantly trying to point to what we know/'see'. If anything I see these as of the same nature barely distinguishable. To the point that dreams/waking experience is merged and undifferentiated or thoughts/sounds are often experienced as arising identically.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: impossible to capture really not even in memories very well.

Couldn't agree more.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So here's the question Seeker, why call any sense data "reality" while it doesn't inform us about anything at all? It's basically a more raw, more fleeting sensation compared to shapes and forms. But there's no real difference, even senses are forms appearing but processed at some subconscious level.

This is the confusion: you call everything "appearance" which is fine by me: the appearance of sense, form and formlessness. They all come and go. They all have causes and effects. But it doesn't address the question of reality at all.
....
Instead your position seems entirely nihilistic: you're using your insight to blur and destroy the relevance of everything. That's not liberation! It's a distinct desire (for un-making) which you are not admitting is a desire. It's a distinct form of suffering which you're not admitting is suffering.

I don't believe reality to be much of a question. Or if it is, not a conceptual one, any 'answer' being found through awareness.
I'm not sure what I'm un-making? I simply don't believe that any form represents independently existing objects or reflects any 'outside'.

It may make this position more clear to hear it said that I believe any experience of 'meaning', 'concept', 'intention', 'thought', 'ideas' are also all uncontrolled and impermanent appearances. 'Running by' as an uninfluenced thought-dialogue might pass by in bed.
Also you would have heard me mention in the past that I don't distinguish these experiences from any other kind of mental formations, such as imaginations/dreams. Wavering images of the 'mind', 'like a vision'. (Again I know these words are almost meaningless references, pointers)
I believe this, what we experience each day, the illusory-like and impermanent appearances, to be the essential nature of 'what is', not requiring any kind of conceptual explanation.

Cahoot wrote:Seeker, would you say that perpetual experience of emptiness is enlightenment.

Mostly before answering you'll have to clarify how you see 'emptiness'? (No such word has the same meaning, anywhere)
I know Dennis might use the term in a different way then I do. (As a reference specifically and only to the lack of inherent existence)
Which I see sort of as a conceptual understanding of what is arising rather than something you 'experience' which was what you asked.

I've finally figured out how to understand what SN-w "means" when he speaks; just put inverted commas around everything he says.

To make more clear what I meant, most people experience existence/life, then think "What", "How", "From where?".

These are what I see as meaningless questions supposing some kind of 'answer'. Some thinking the "what" or "how" is the result of the body, or of compounded atoms, or a reflection of an independently existing world that we only receive sense data from, or from God,etc. Throw these away and what is left? What's actually there. No theory is needed, nothing is missing.