GENIUS FORUMS

The Zen guys grant a massive significance to body comportment for being-in-the-world.
Walk when walking, sit when sitting.
posture, poise,
in the body,
centre of gravity,
experiencing delight in that,
simple pleasure.

I 'get' it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:The Zen guys grant a massive significance to body comportment for being-in-the-world.
Walk when walking, sit when sitting.
posture, poise,
in the body,
centre of gravity,
experiencing delight in that,
simple pleasure.

I 'get' it.

is it about experiencing simple pleasure ?
or is it about being MINDFUL ?

is it about experiencing simple pleasure ?
or is it about being MINDFUL ?

does that mean walkin' around on eggshells?

Dennis Mahar wrote:
does that mean walkin' around on eggshells?

If your brain was being operated on, would you care if the doctor texted his girlfriend throughout the procedure ?

You could choke on your chicken....

You're saying:

'something is at stake'

that it amounts to something.

What?

It all depends on the situation...
your life would be at stake in the case of a mindless doctor....and in the case of eating mindlessly....

A monk training himself for Enlightenment....would never gain insight into his true nature by not practicing rigidly in mindfulness.....

You also could say the wrong thing to a person, triggering them to spiral down into a horrible state of depression.....

Yes, it's like walking on eggshells,[ being mindful].

Dennis Mahar wrote:It is what it is and isn't what it isn't.

It's how it turned out.

It was nothing really, you know, just a misunderstanding,
just sayin',
to come from that nuthin,
each new moment is momentous, fresh and alive with a possibility.

Are we clear on that?

No use sookin' about 'what happened' which turns out to be a story about 'what happened'.

Memory is great because I don't have to figure out how to open the window every time I want to open the window.
Re-feeling the fuck-ups sux.

The "fuck-up" of sentient suffering is not the story about 'what happened' but the story about what is happening. As for sookin' about it, I live in the woods and see and hear, first hand, nature lusting, hunting, screaming and crunching for and on herself. Does Australia not house the saltwater croc, the giant beast that drowns and dismembers cattle, horses and humans that come too close to the water's edge? How about taking a stroll down to your local riverbank, meeting a saltie and telling him that his hunger is all just a misunderstanding? My intention here is not to be dramatic or depressing but to be compassionately real.

Thank God for compassionate action, mundane action, laughing babies and Seinfeld....and that fresh and alive moment of possibility that we will all, predatory crocs and humans alike, awaken from this nightmare of survival necessities.

Does Australia not house the saltwater croc, the giant beast that drowns and dismembers cattle, horses and humans that come too close to the water's edge?

You must have met my ex.

Wieninger figured the only philosophical question is suicide.
?

The Ultimate Drama Queen move.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Wieninger figured the only philosophical question is suicide.
?

Which is more than can be said for you.

(inb4 pretend-koan in response.)

The "fuck-up" of sentient suffering is not the story about 'what happened' but the story about what is happening.

it's always/already in the past as an explanation and you decide 'what happened' and 'fix' the future according to that.
You make it mean what it means.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

movingalways: The "fuck-up" of sentient suffering is not the story about 'what happened' but the story about what is happening.

it's always/already in the past as an explanation and you decide 'what happened' and 'fix' the future according to that.
You make it mean what it means.

How is the visceral experience of seeing and hearing a raccoon being torn apart by a coyote "an explanation of what happened" a "making it what it means?" Screaming is screaming.

Why the use of quotation marks around the word 'fix?'

You make it right/wrong, good/bad etc..
thus giving it inherent existence.
You've got your categories running you,
locked up in duality.

Squirrell screaming, for instance as appearance,
the subject of the verb screaming,
turns out to be you screaming,
You're the screamer my love.

Who are you blaming?,
the object of the verb screaming is in your words 'Nature',

Nature has you screaming 'foul play'.
It's rare to come across a being not screaming 'foul play'.


It's how you're hooked into...

this 'fixing' gets the future as a story to live into.


Consciousness chooses reality mostly on false evidence appearing real.

I've got a wonderful friend of 40 years duration who was sexually assaulted 4 years ago.
She faced her perp in a series of judicial hearings up to the point where an expensive County Court Trial was convened.
The day before the Trial, the perp admitted liability.
That means he 'saved' taxpayers money and was 'rewarded' with a small fine, a probation sentence and listing on the sexual offender's list.
I'm screaming 'foul play'.
A part of me has a plan to wait in the shadows and kneecap him with a baseball bat.

Any advice?

'what's at stake?'.

Dennis Mahar wrote:You make it right/wrong, good/bad etc..
thus giving it inherent existence.
You've got your categories running you,
locked up in duality.

Squirrell screaming, for instance as appearance,
the subject of the verb screaming,
turns out to be you screaming,
You're the screamer my love.

Who are you blaming?,
the object of the verb screaming is in your words 'Nature',

It's how you're hooked into...

The intellect will tell itself anything to deny its feeling nature, my love.

this 'fixing' gets the future as a story to live into.


Consciousness chooses reality mostly on false evidence appearing real.

I've got a wonderful friend of 40 years duration who was sexually assaulted 4 years ago.
She faced her perp in a series of judicial hearings up to the point where an expensive County Court Trial was convened.
The day before the Trial, the perp admitted liability.
That means he 'saved' taxpayers money and was 'rewarded' with a small fine, a probation sentence and listing on the sexual offender's list.
I'm screaming 'foul play'.
A part of me has a plan to wait in the shadows and kneecap him with a baseball bat.

Any advice?

Scream foul play, feel compassion. For him, for her, for you, for the totality of the sentient world.

Yeah, I generate that feeling nature myself for the wonderful feelings,
And yet the task is disclosing being for human being.
Was that done?

Dennis Mahar wrote:Yeah, I generate that feeling nature myself for the wonderful feelings,
And yet the task is disclosing being for human being.
Was that done?

Human being is not the topic of our recent discussion, animal being is what we were discussing.

Human being is not the topic of our recent discussion, animal being is what we were discussing.

A 'personality' that is deficient?

What is complete?

Scream foul play, feel compassion. For him, for her, for you, for the totality of the sentient world

.

You've got your 'object' in mind: Sentience.

Sentience being deficient/foul.

How did the spots get on the leopard?

Does the Universe see spots ?
Does the Tao see spots ?
Does Jane see spots ?
Does Dick see spots ?

See Spot run !
He runs for fun !

Run, Run, Run

Now Spot is on the Sun !

Dennis, you are a pip. :-)

Dennis, you are a pip. :-)

is that OK?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Now I don't know how you would describe or how you see the nature of all things (earth, body, universe,etc) but there is no inherent distinction between appearances of this sort and the appearance of something everyone would agree to be nothing more than a fantasy. In the same way a ring is no different to gold, the world we refer to, with all its manifestations, is no different to any passing 'mind-experience'.

And yet we do make distinctions, like you are doing now, between one expression and the other, one description being more representative of truth than some fantastic statement. This distinction is not "inherent" but purely contextual. That's how you'd distinguish between dreaming and being awake, no matter momentary confusions in between. The dream will not stand when not acting in relation with its larger context. It's meant to rise and fade fairly quickly, like a fog, a brief moment of inspiring lucidity at best. But life can pass us by in the same way: rising and fading fairly quickly, like a dream. Or as a bright spark of spirit at best. What is often called "reality" is derived from this very difference.

Yes "we do make distinctions". Essentially all appearances are of the same nature, arising similarly, whether or not one experience appears more permanent or consist than another, it is never less real or more illusory, how we think and feel about it is what changes. The world is revealed to be like a dream when we see nothing exists. Of course there are appearances, but that is why it said that they appear(change/fade). Or to clarify, one could not say something that no longer exists still now exists.

Diebert:

Are you dreaming by and through the five senses? The five senses are the issue.


Well, stimuli are stimuli. You do see and hear things in your dreams? That's what for me senses mean but if you want to create (rather confusing ) distinctions between senses and sensory systems, then we'd be missing the point, wouldn't we?

If a person cannot see, are they less of a person? If a person cannot hear, are they less of a person? Does someone who has lost a finger experience less consciousness?

This addiction to material things is stubborn.

Consciousness is not restrained by the five senses.

Well, the answer is that there's no reason to believe that our mind and whatever consciousness happening would last very long without any complex sensation or information happening. It's unimportant to me if sensing happens "inside" the body or "outside". The experiments suggest that after a while isolation will cause confusion and at some point even death (as we cannot exist in a vacuum, in a non-exchanging situation for long, which is a major clue about life and being).

That is just not true. That is just more dogma to defend the materialistic view of consciousness despite the facts pointing in the opposite direction. Most times, on this board, the defense of the dogma seems to want to trump all experience, what is self evident and all logic.

If what you said were true, people in a coma for years would all come out of it insane. That is just not the case Diebert. Many, in fact most that come out of a coma, even after years of being in that state, function normally.Some were aware of their environment and some were not but still experienced being conscious.

In fact:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2c5DspQMb

B1:
All things appear to consciousness without exception. Consciousness itself does not appear - anywhere - at anytime - under any circumstances.

Consciousness does not appear as a thought, a thing or a concept. You can think about consciousness but that thought is contained itself within consciousness - add infinity. You can see consciousness animating a physical body. The physical body that is animated by consciousness itself appears within consciousness. You can have a concept about consciousness and that concept itself appears within consciousness. You can perceive the universe and the appearance of the universe itself is within consciousness.


Diebert:
How can it be "within" a consciousness? It's not a container of some kind, is it?

Just as much as the totality contains all things so yes, it may be referred to as a container because you cannot have anything - no exceptions - without consciousness. Therefore - using logic, experience and what is self evident, all and everything is contained by consciousness, no exceptions.

If something is contingent to be in existence, it is intrinsically linked by causality. What contains the thing and all contingent things? If all things appear to the mind, it follows that all things are contained by consciousness because consciousness exceeds all things by also being *not* all things. There is not event horizon for consciousness because it has no perceptual boundary. This means, no matter how big the universe gets, it never outstrips consciousness.

Therefore, cause and effect does not - ever - under any circumstances - outstrip consciousness. Consciousness itself does not appear.

As soon as the cause is known it is contained within consciousness. The expansion rate of the universe is identical to the information or data made available or A=A. Nothing outstrips consciousness because the data made available of all cause and effect is made available by the mind perceiving the cause.

This is just plain ole logic.

This perception of subject and object, the self-perception, is the very description of consciousness. No need for superfluous extras. Like some self-made gods!

The self, the perceiver, the subject and the object do not take place 'outside' of consciousness.

The universe and its expansion rate are identical to the data stream of the mind.

C=dA+A^A

It is the same with light. The only thing you can know about light is its effect. You cannot see light in vacuum. In fact, you cannot see light at all. Light does not 'appear' because you cannot see light without it reflecting on a 'thing'.

If you take the brightest light you have, even in pitch darkness, you could not see light without an object. Yet all things appear because of light, material or thought objects all the while light never makes an appearance.

Beingof1 wrote:If a person cannot see, are they less of a person? If a person cannot hear, are they less of a person? Does someone who has lost a finger experience less consciousness?

But the discussion is not about being a person, fuller or lesser. It was also not about fingers being equal to the sensory system. You just change the beacons and goal posts.

Consciousness is not restrained by the five senses.

You're free to smell things that are not really there, of course. Consciousness is not restrained by sanity for sure.

If what you said were true, people in a coma for years would all come out of it insane. That is just not the case Diebert. Many, in fact most that come out of a coma, even after years of being in that state, function normally.Some were aware of their environment and some were not but still experienced being conscious.

People in a coma are not deprived from all senses lying in a tank. People who are dreaming or just knocked out are neither. Why are you changing the topic?

As it happens I have not been making the claim that consciousness is always on and can never switch off. It's another claim you introduce.

In fact: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2c5DspQMb

And if you'd actually read it more attentively then you'd see that they discovered the man was actually all the time to some degree sensing things and therefore conscious while first they didn't think he was. Which would be proving my case more than yours. Get your senses together, Being! ("The researchers were able to communicate with the patient but found that he was also aware of his environment, meaning he could maintain coherent thoughts and lead a rich mental life").

Just as much as the totality contains all things so yes, it may be referred to as a container because you cannot have anything - no exceptions - without consciousness. Therefore - using logic, experience and what is self evident, all and everything is contained by consciousness, no exceptions.

From your perspective as a little ego, that seems certainly so. For you, there's nothing else, never was, never will be.

This means, no matter how big the universe gets, it never outstrips consciousness.

Your universe, your consciousness. You just do not know what's beyond it and thus your declare it non-existent! Consciousness does not equal the totality. That's a major logical error.

If you take the brightest light you have, even in pitch darkness, you could not see light without an object. Yet all things appear because of light, material or thought objects all the while light never makes an appearance.

Appearances are not the totality as you can never see what's not appearing and yet things can only appear because of all that what doesn't appear. And what doesn't appear you're unconsciousness of.

Diebert, I cannot determine if you do not have the mental capability of understanding, are intentionally obscuring and obfuscating or are just to brainwashed to see salient points when they are made.

Take care