GENIUS FORUMS

Seeker,

Let's decide for Dennis what he means by "broken" since, in all his glorious existence in truth and enlightenment, as he freely admits above he has no wisdom to share.

Let's say that when Dennis says "nothing is broken" he means everything is the way it should be; determined, caused. In this context, your reply:

Yet there's almost everyone who will list hundreds of things wrong in their lives, their suffering, and all their stresses to you.

Your lucky enough to understand the truth of the matters, yet they clearly have many issues anyway, being so unaware of the meaning making.

You can't deny they all think things are broken. If that's not true, then already their perspectives and efforts are wrong/delusional.

Your first line is about what we usually refer to as ego, and is caused ("nothing is broken").

Your second line says to Dennis how lucky he is to know things are caused, whereas "they" have many issues since they are not aware of meaning-making. Yet, this meaning-making too is necessarily caused.

Then in your third sentence you say that it is undeniable "they all think things are uncaused". This is not quite true. Religionists think, for example, that god caused everything. Even the ones who believe in free will.

So, when you finally say, "If it isn't true that things are uncaused, then they're already deluded", it follows from your reasoning that religionists aren't "already" deluded but something else happens to them after this maybe to cause them to be deluded.

Yet, I don't think this is what you meant at all. Is it?

I don't think it's so specific. To think a plan has been ruined and get sad or a hairdryer/trailer isn't working is to perceive brokenness.

Dennis has the argument you can't prove brokenness, meaning-making, but he also seemed to be ignoring the fact that so many are deluded and that there is a problem.

If you brought up the issue of widespread delusion, he would call 'meaning-making', 'complaint', nothing to 'fix'.

So I said that even if he were correct, and there's no such thing as broken ultimately, many wouldn't agree as they are whining about what's wrong.
Which would then only outline the problem of delusion more so. People finding wrongness that causes them suffering when there isn't any and it's just meaning-making! lol, It would mean they clearly have a deluded perspective, right?

My point was that there is brokenness, easily seen within 5 minutes of the average persons existence, suffering caused by delusion. Stay around a house-wife you'll hear it every 15 seconds. Being unaware of it or ignoring it is the worst part, doesn't allow the resolution to such 'taints'/'blemishes'.

In short, there's a fuck ton of broken. (Whether one can prove it or not)

No need :) I'd be on the defence along with you.

I submitted my resume to the firm of attorneys,
Buts, Buts & Buts.

meantime I heard it was a dead end job.

Who knows, I might believe you once did!

Never know what could have occurred in your life since the ice age, eh?

So the sum of this magnificent insight is that just because something is not functioning according to its technological specifications, no reason to get upset.

All this, just to say that.

Wow.

seeker,

there's never been a hair on a head out of place any time anywhere.

how could there be?

If brokenness is your thing.

Your argument is with Nature.

let me know how that goes.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:In short, there's a fuck ton of broken. (Whether one can prove it or not)

But back to square one, Buddha was telling about how birth is suffering, death, struggle, desire, basically "life is suffering". So to be alive in itself is "broken"? Is that what you sense?

No, Diebert, He's not saying that. He's saying "nothing is 'broken' ultimately", therefore every conception 'broken' is deluded and the source of all suffering!

Leyla Shen wrote:No, Diebert, He's not saying that. He's saying "nothing is 'broken' ultimately", therefore every conception 'broken' is deluded and the source of all suffering!

But that would be replacing "broken" with "delusion". Still error, still dukkha somewhere in the field of vision and therefore also his relative existence.

Plus, ultimately nothing is broken and/or/xor unbroken by definition. There cannot be any "nothing is broken" realm in ultimate form or at least nobody is teaching that but the Christian heaven theology.

Again Leyla, making things up, holding a grudge.
I said the exact opposite of "every conception 'broken' is deluded".
It was made very clear that I was against Dennis' idea that there's no brokenness.

Plus, don't talk to me. Stop itching to make a comment because of a grudge, let go of your spitefulness.

This forum only becomes more of a ghost town with time. There is literally about 5 posters, maybe 3 regular ones. I predict we'll drop off soon enough too. In that inevitable case, cya buddies.

Stop fucking whinging like a bitch.

In short, there's a fuck ton of broken. (Whether one can prove it or not)

Can you prove brokenness or not?

Stop whinging she says, while whinging!

Even if 'broken' is only a perspective, that still leaves millions of people with delusion who will attest otherwise, only proving their problem or brokenness. Hence the quotes 'blemish' and 'taint' which are things that need to be recognized and resolved, not ignored.

I mean, you know, the question actually logically follows your above statement, which you ignored.

What I am doing is insisting you start addressing the ideas put forward to you, and thinking your own through fully, instead of merely seeking "agreement".

We both know you'd just look for a way to criticize/mock anyway. You aren't interested in any real discussion, just playing verses. Why discuss with your enemy?

That could only be true if it was the case that my above question is unreasonable.

Is it? Or are you?

It isn't the question, it's your intent. Do you care about the question at all? How about a new approach, fresh start.

SeekerofAgreement,

There's a problem!

Pretty dumb coming from a definition Nazi, how is communication supposed to happen without agreement or common ground for the topics discussed?

I've been very clear about my intent.

All you have to do is let go of this need for "agreement" and answer the question. There, every time, you will have a fresh start.

Try it.

Did I ask you a reasonable question or not, Seeker?

Agreement occurs or not during a discussion, dummy!

seeker,
we're on the horns of a dilemma.

you've obviously got 'something at stake'.

what's at stake?

by the look of it you're staking out delusion as absolute, a fixed, unmovable thing existing from its own side.

perhaps it's conditional?

Leyla Shen wrote: Can you prove brokenness or not?

No.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:We both know you'd just look for a way to criticize/mock anyway.

Leyla Shen wrote:dummy!