GENIUS FORUMS

Oh, and my ancient mother assures me that "Yab Yum" were my very first words as an infant! Great minds do think alike...

Kunga wrote:Kunga: Does the Ultimate Truth have anything to do with the concepts dividing feminine & masculine ?

I wrote: From several different perspectives, yes. There's the perspective that climbs from the form to the formless realms, and poetically relates the stillness of formlessness to the stillness of woman's passivity, and the activity of dualism to the creativity of men. That is pure poetry. Then there's the perspective of consciousness and scope, which sees that masculine-mindedness has far higher scope than feminine.

Kunga: As Huang Po said ...there is but ONE MIND. WE ARE THAT ONE MIND.

I wrote: Huang Po is being poetic here. He is not equating mind with consciousness. The One of which he speaks does not have any qualities or characteristics, such as subconsciousness, the ability to make you happy or healthy, or so forth. He does not have the same meaning for "mind" as the New Age therapist you quoted.

Kunga: Ultimate Truth has no perspectives. That's Conventional Truth (duality).

Consciousness of Truth is definitely a perspective, and it is not the same perspective as unconsciousness of Truth. What's more, without the former perspective, Ultimate Truth is not known.

Then on one hand you praise the ability of men to be poetic, while criticizing the poetic symbolism expressed in the Yab-Yum representation of male/female consciousness.

I applauded the correct interpretation of the poetic symbolism of the two-part vision of the Tao, and boo-ed the false one, which is the one you happen to like.

Buddha is the ONE MIND. We are THAT (ONE MIND). That is not being poetic. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.

If I pasted something and labelled it "Wikipedia", or "by the Buddha", you'd think it were ultimate truth. There goes your "no perspectives".

" This is a short extract by Huang Po on the nature of the mind and Buddha nature: All Buddhas and all ordinary beings are nothing but the one mind. This mind is beginningless and endless, unborn and indestructible. It has no color or shape, neither exists nor doesn't exist, isn't old or new, long or short, large or small, since it transcends all measures, limits, names, and comparisons. It is what you see in front of you.

Start to think about it and immediately you are mistaken. It is like the boundless void, which can't be fathomed or measured. The one mind is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between Buddha and ordinary beings, except that ordinary beings are attached to forms and thus seek for Buddhahood outside themselves. By this very seeking they lose it, since they are using Buddha to seek for Buddha, using mind to seek for mind. Even if they continue for a million eons, they will never be able to find it. They don't know that all they have to do is put a stop to conceptual thinking, and the Buddha will appear before them, because this mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not any less for being manifested in ordinary things, nor any greater for being manifested in Buddhas."

Huang Po is talking about the true nature of "the one mind". He is not talking about consciousness as something qualitatively identical to Reality. He is saying that the essence of the mind (of consciousness) is emptiness.

He is basically trying to strip away the attachment to consciousness or to mind, by talking about what it truly is.

I really don't think you are anywhere near able to understand this simple idea, because you lack faith in your own thinking. You are too inclined to trust in the outward forms, in the external authority of scriptures or gurus or traditions, rather than looking inward into your own thought. It is a mistake for you to keep looking for teachers and scripts to guide you.


...

Kunga wrote:In reality, women are more like rocks. (jupiviv)

And you're living on one :


http://blog.timesunion.com/simplerlivin ... -earth.jpg

Unconscious/semi-conscious things may be useful if used *for* conscious purposes, but they have no value in and of themselves. The feminine mind only has value relative to the male mind, but without that value it is worthless. It can either have a value projected upon it by a male mind, or it can help men understand themselves in contrast to it. Socrates said that he learnt from a woman - this might have something to do with the latter.

jupiviv wrote:Unconscious/semi-conscious things may be useful if used *for* conscious purposes, but they have no value in and of themselves. The feminine mind only has value relative to the male mind, but without that value it is worthless. It can either have a value projected upon it by a male mind, or it can help men understand themselves in contrast to it. Socrates said that he learnt from a woman - this might have something to do with the latter.

This is, no doubt, why many colleges and universities have "Women's Studies" departments; for the "Men's Studies" departments are the colleges and universities themselves.

Kelly Jones wrote:He is basically trying to strip away the attachment to consciousness or to mind, by talking about what it truly is.

I really don't think you are anywhere near able to understand this simple idea, because you lack faith in your own thinking. You are too inclined to trust in the outward forms, in the external authority of scriptures or gurus or traditions, rather than looking inward into your own thought. It is a mistake for you to keep looking for teachers and scripts to guide you.

If you understood it... you would stop your nonsense about the unconscious feminine mind. Don't be a hypocrite Kelly...your references to philosophers (your gurus)...and the traditions associated with philosophical debate...and all the other external books of knowledge you quote and have learned from, are not of your own thoughts. Whatever thoughts you think are your own are only the regurgitation's of others thoughts.

If i believed a single word you said i truly would lack faith in my own thinking.


http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... uangPo.htm

Kunga wrote:Don't be a hypocrite Kelly...your references to philosophers (your gurus)...and the traditions associated with philosophical debate...and all the other external books of knowledge you quote and have learned from, are not of your own thoughts. Whatever thoughts you think are your own are only the regurgitation's of others thoughts.

If i believed a single word you said i truly would lack faith in my own thinking.

This from Miss Cut-and-Paste!

If you had faith in your own thinking, that lower case first person nominative singular would blossom into its rightful Upper Case, used by most males and by the majority of post-adolescent females. Just out of curiosity, when you are handwriting the word "I," do you dot the lower case i by drawing a little heart over it?

Learning about others is one of the best ways to gain insights about yourself.
It's not that i don't sympathize.
you seem to be missing my point, or at least persist in avoiding it in favor of making personal (mis)judgments:
Your characterizations of my ability to discern are nothing but a way to deflect my observations,

Kunga wrote:Don't be a hypocrite Kelly...your references to philosophers (your gurus)...and the traditions associated with philosophical debate...and all the other external books of knowledge you quote and have learned from, are not of your own thoughts. Whatever thoughts you think are your own are only the regurgitation's of others thoughts.

I regard them as my colleagues, and Dharma fathers in a genealogical sense. I don't bow to them and assume they are right, simply because they are called "Grand Master" or "Buddhist Patriarch", as you do. If an idea strikes me as good, I think about it.

If I see flaws in certain ideas, I don't promote the author. So I don't endorse people without good reason, and I'm more likely not to promote people. Just one error makes me suspicious that everything else is wrong.


...

Jupta wrote:The feminine mind only has value relative to the male mind, but without that value it is worthless. It can either have a value projected upon it by a male mind, or it can help men understand themselves in contrast to it. Socrates said that he learnt from a woman - this might have something to do with the latter.

Maybe Diotima was real, and understood the simple idea about love: to love is not to be lovable - to desire beauty is to be wanting beauty - to seek the truth is to lack it. But it wasn't Diotima who spread this idea with the precision and strength of a Socrates or Plato. If one values an idea, one has to fight for its survival and existence in the world. Socrates fought for the idea, kept teaching to help it survive, and she didn't.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:

Jupta wrote:The feminine mind only has value relative to the male mind, but without that value it is worthless. It can either have a value projected upon it by a male mind, or it can help men understand themselves in contrast to it. Socrates said that he learnt from a woman - this might have something to do with the latter.

Maybe Diotima was real, and understood the simple idea about love: to love is not to be lovable - to desire beauty is to be wanting beauty - to seek the truth is to lack it. But it wasn't Diotima who spread this idea with the precision and strength of a Socrates or Plato. If one values an idea, one has to fight for its survival and existence in the world. Socrates fought for the idea, kept teaching to help it survive, and she didn't.


...

I would say that love, beauty, truth etc. always originate from the self, since the idea of value originates from the self, so it isn't right to say that to love is not to be lovable.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kunga wrote:Don't be a hypocrite Kelly...your references to philosophers (your gurus)...and the traditions associated with philosophical debate...and all the other external books of knowledge you quote and have learned from, are not of your own thoughts. Whatever thoughts you think are your own are only the regurgitation's of others thoughts.

I regard them as my colleagues, and Dharma fathers in a genealogical sense. I don't bow to them and assume they are right, simply because they are called "Grand Master" or "Buddhist Patriarch", as you do. If an idea strikes me as good, I think about it.

If I see flaws in certain ideas, I don't promote the author. So I don't endorse people without good reason, and I'm more likely not to promote people. Just one error makes me suspicious that everything else is wrong.


...

Don't assume you know me Kelly. Your arrogance makes you look pathetic. But now that I think of it...(after reading some recent posts of yours in another thread)...I can understand a bit why you are that way. If i was isolated and disliked most people I would probably get deeper into myself & become more of an individual instead of spread out so thin as I am. You have had the time to dedicate to this (full time), whereas I have had to cram when the time was available to me. You have the gift of non-attachment to people...whereas I've spent my life serving them and sacrificing my individuality . As a result I have lost most of my identity and all my potential as an artist,poet, philosopher. My last hope was to be a yogi. But now I realize that is way too hard, and I don't have what it takes to do that either.
At any rate....I am sorry to have irritated you with my jabs .

Kunga wrote:As a result I have lost most of my identity and all my potential as an artist,poet, philosopher. My last hope was to be a yogi

All fine careers for such a Deep Thinker

cousinbasil wrote:All fine careers for such a Deep Thinker

Could you elaborate your intensions on this statement ? My thoughts are so deep sometimes that I can't express them....and sometimes they are so deep
that I want to die...so fuck off.

Kunga wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:All fine careers for such a Deep Thinker

Could you elaborate your intensions on this statement ? My thoughts are so deep sometimes that I can't express them....and sometimes they are so deep
that I want to die...so fuck off.

Apparently I have touched a nerve. You no more want to die than I do, or the next person. Alas, if the nerve still throbs, one cannot administer Novocaine over the Internet.

jupiviv wrote:I would say that love, beauty, truth etc. always originate from the self, since the idea of value originates from the self, so it isn't right to say that to love is not to be lovable.

To love something is to desire it. That means one lacks it. The lacking originates from the self, as does the valuation of what is loved.


...

Kunga wrote:You have had the time to dedicate to this (full time), whereas I have had to cram when the time was available to me.

You make the choices. It's not someone else who forces you to cram.

You have the gift of non-attachment to people...whereas I've spent my life serving them and sacrificing my individuality .

That too is your choice. It is never too late, and one is never too old, to remedy one's past wrongs.

As a result I have lost most of my identity and all my potential as an artist,poet, philosopher. My last hope was to be a yogi. But now I realize that is way too hard, and I don't have what it takes to do that either.

Stop playing the victim card. Changing your trajectory in life is possible at every moment. Just take it one step at a time. Do what is necessary today, and tomorrow, and the day after. Soon you will have more "merit" going your way.


To begin with, how about being "selfish" and looking after your own spiritual needs, instead of pretending you can look after others?


...

Kelly Jones wrote:

jupiviv wrote:I would say that love, beauty, truth etc. always originate from the self, since the idea of value originates from the self, so it isn't right to say that to love is not to be lovable.

To love something is to desire it. That means one lacks it. The lacking originates from the self, as does the valuation of what is loved.


...

A person may lack the object that he loves(because it is not himself), but not the love/value that he projects onto it. The things that we love or value don't have any intrinsic value, and this is why it's said in Buddhism that things lack inherent existence.

As for Diotima - she was probably some eloquent and passionate woman who spoke a bunch of beautiful nonsense about love, and the young Socrates "learnt" from that. Or maybe she had sex with him.

jupiviv wrote:Jupta: I would say that love, beauty, truth etc. always originate from the self, since the idea of value originates from the self, so it isn't right to say that to love is not to be lovable.

I wrote: To love something is to desire it. That means one lacks it. The lacking originates from the self, as does the valuation of what is loved.

Jupta: A person may lack the object that he loves(because it is not himself), but not the love/value that he projects onto it.

The love is present in the person, sure. It's certainly not absent. But if one loves something, that means one doesn't have it. For instance, if a person has the emotional desire for truth, they're not fully truthful. They have some concept of what truth is, but not the full experience. Hope this clarifies.

The things that we love or value don't have any intrinsic value, and this is why it's said in Buddhism that things lack inherent existence.

Well, the arbitrariness of something's value isn't actually the same as lacking intrinsic existence. People can be very aware of the essential neutrality of things, yet still believe they're really there. Ascribing value isn't quite the same as ascribing existence.

As for Diotima - she was probably some eloquent and passionate woman who spoke a bunch of beautiful nonsense about love, and the young Socrates "learnt" from that. Or maybe she had sex with him.

Well, it is possible, but I think unlikely. We'll never know for certain.

It's worth thinking this through a bit, though.

If the story is true, and if Socrates existed, then think about the kind of memory of Diotima he'd have had, if she was a silly woman, or even a kind of vestal virgin / oracle whom he had sex with. He would never have regarded her as a teacher, but himself as the teacher. Right? So, the next question to ask is, does Socrates lie? It's not typical of him, he is fastidious and even pedestrian in his truthfulness. He doesn't leave anything to the imagination. The next question to ask is, does he pay empty flattery to others with whom he has discussions, saying that ignorant persons are his teachers? No, not unless he was being sarcastic, or provocative. In the Symposium, he provocatively says that Agathon is his superior in the task at hand - his teacher - but then he explains that this superiority consists in lying about love, praising and making an encomium, rather than simply telling the truth. So, no, it's not usual of him to pay flattery - which is basically lying.

A couple of other things come to mind that make it seem to be a likely story. For instance, ancient Grecian men were homosexual, mostly in an idealistic sense. Sexual intercourse with women was generally a fertility-oriented activity, to have children. Socrates had had two wives, I think, and children. He had no false conceptions about women's abilities, and didn't teach women, or spend much time at all with them. He didn't spend his last hours with his family. So, it would have been quite odd for him to have sex with a woman in the context of a philosophical enquiry. And, if he had had sex with her, I think he would have mentioned it.

The other thing that came to mind was Socrates wasn't even likely to have sex with a man, to whom he would have been far more likely to have a sexual attraction. After his speech during the Symposium, Alcibiades enters, drunkenly, and in his inebriation, tells the story that he would not tell if he were sober. Namely, that he thought Socrates was his lover, since Socrates spent time with him like one seeking something from him. But, eventually, he realised nothing he could give Socrates satisfied him. He even tried to seduce Socrates by inviting him over for discussions until late at night, and tried to get him to engage in sexual intercourse. Nothing doing.

A simple, idealistic, straightforward discussion seems more consonant with the evidence, in my opinion. The ancient Greeks were far more idealistic than we are nowadays. Their pantheon was full of idealised entities, and their temples of worship were dotted around the landscape. Blasphemy and lack of virtue was a far more serious crime for them - indeed, Socrates was killed for alleged blasphemy.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:The love is present in the person, sure. It's certainly not absent. But if one loves something, that means one doesn't have it. For instance, if a person has the emotional desire for truth, they're not fully truthful. They have some concept of what truth is, but not the full experience. Hope this clarifies.

What I meant about love is that the value that other things seem to have(which makes us desire them in the first place) is really our own value, and it's only our deluded minds that make us see them as valuable, and desire them. Similarly, if we think truth can be necessarily found in something(like the Bible), we are mistakenly projecting truth onto them.

jupiviv wrote:The things that we love or value don't have any intrinsic value, and this is why it's said in Buddhism that things lack inherent existence.

Well, the arbitrariness of something's value isn't actually the same as lacking intrinsic existence. People can be very aware of the essential neutrality of things, yet still believe they're really there. Ascribing value isn't quite the same as ascribing existence.

If we see something just as it is, without any delusions of our own making, then it's impossible to see it as being inherently existent. Just because things lack inherent existence doesn't mean they do not exist.

Kelly Jones wrote:

jupiviv wrote:Jupta: I would say that love, beauty, truth etc. always originate from the self, since the idea of value originates from the self, so it isn't right to say that to love is not to be lovable.

I wrote: To love something is to desire it. That means one lacks it. The lacking originates from the self, as does the valuation of what is loved.

Jupta: A person may lack the object that he loves(because it is not himself), but not the love/value that he projects onto it.

The love is present in the person, sure. It's certainly not absent. But if one loves something, that means one doesn't have it. For instance, if a person has the emotional desire for truth, they're not fully truthful. They have some concept of what truth is, but not the full experience. Hope this clarifies.

The things that we love or value don't have any intrinsic value, and this is why it's said in Buddhism that things lack inherent existence.

Well, the arbitrariness of something's value isn't actually the same as lacking intrinsic existence. People can be very aware of the essential neutrality of things, yet still believe they're really there.

And they're not? Really there?
Who taught you this?
I cant wrap my mind around your concept of things not really there. Then where are they? I dont get this at all.

Again it feels like parrotting, and I genuinely hope you able to show otherwise.

If im to believe you then id have to learn and accept that my world is some sort of hallucination. But if that is so then what are "true" or ordinary hallucinations, and how do they differ?

Honestly I dont think you know what you are saying, Kelly.

EGG

..... Ascribing value isn't quite the same as ascribing existence.

awakeninggenius wrote:

Kelly wrote:

Jupta wrote:The things that we love or value don't have any intrinsic value, and this is why it's said in Buddhism that things lack inherent existence.

Well, the arbitrariness of something's value isn't actually the same as lacking intrinsic existence. People can be very aware of the essential neutrality of things, yet still believe they're really there.

And they're not? Really there? Who taught you this? I cant wrap my mind around your concept of things not really there. Then where are they? I dont get this at all. Again it feels like parrotting, and I genuinely hope you able to show otherwise. If im to believe you then id have to learn and accept that my world is some sort of hallucination. But if that is so then what are "true" or ordinary hallucinations, and how do they differ?

There's another option, other than believing that things are hallucinatory: the logical truth that things are made of causes. If you mentally "zoom-in" on the causes for any thing, you'd notice that the apparent boundary between the causes isn't actually as straightforward as first perceived.

For instance, a shadow is caused by light shining onto an object, more brightly than any other light shining on the object. But if one examines the two kinds of light, one finds that they are physically inseparable. Light intensity has gradations, so where one brightness (or warmth) stops existing precisely, and where another starts, cannot be clearly marked. We could also see this causal continuity in the fact that the object lit-up has a visual existence because of light. So its existence is also part of the gradualness of light intensity.

Or, we could transpose the existence of the shadow, light, and objects, into the sphere of atomic activity, and there again see a boundaryless continuum of causes.

Have you ever thought much about cause and effect?

There's an interesting exposition of causality here.


..

Kelly Jones wrote:There's another option, other than believing that things are hallucinatory: the logical truth that things are made of causes. If you mentally "zoom-in" on the causes for any thing, you'd notice that the apparent boundary between the causes isn't actually as straightforward as first perceived.

The fact that things have causes, even if those causes cannot be all known, doesn't mean that they don't really exist, or that their boundaries are necessarily illusory or vague. Causality is ultimately the same as duality, and there can't be one without the other.

The reason we can't know about all the particular causes of something(and their effects) is because the moment we divide a thing into causes, then there will be more individual things(the parts) whose causes we must find, and so on. Ultimately, all the causes and effects of a thing are the same as itself, in the same way that all the things in the Totality are the same as itself.

awakeninggenius wrote:If im to believe you then id have to learn and accept that my world is some sort of hallucination. But if that is so then what are "true" or ordinary hallucinations, and how do they differ?

Fundamentally they don't.

You don't accept that your world is a hallucination (dream) , you just know it.

The fact that things have causes, .... doesn't mean that they don't really exist,

The truth that things are caused means they cannot exist in the discrete "objectified" way we usually perceive them to.

That everything is a seamless continuum of infinite processes of causality means there are no discrete things, or even discrete causes.

What then is causality?


...

Kelly Jones wrote:

The fact that things have causes, .... doesn't mean that they don't really exist,

The truth that things are caused means they cannot exist in the discrete "objectified" way we usually perceive them to.

That everything is a seamless continuum of infinite processes of causality means there are no discrete things, or even discrete causes.

What then is causality?


...

Depends on how you look at it. If we're talking about a frog, then we have to look at it in an "objectified" manner. If we're talking about the swamp that the frog lives in, we have to look at in in perspective of the swamp, which we have to take as "objective". If we're talking about the jungle in which the swamp exists, then we have to talk about the frog and the swamp in the perspective of the objective jungle. But since the Totality includes your perspective, you can't think of anything in perspective of the Totality....or conversely, you can think of everything in perspective of the Totality.