GENIUS FORUMS

Does the conceptually designating mind have a different ontological status than the objects it identifies.
No.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So you guys do not really understand dependent arising then? Since you've started to exclude some things from it right there.

Think he means there's no difference between the universe and consciousness. That would mean dependent.

Note where the condition of consciousness appears in dependent arising (existence):

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise
With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises
With Consciousness as condition, Mind and Matter arise
With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise
With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises
With Contact as condition, Feeling arises
With Feeling as condition, Craving arises
With Craving as condition, Clinging arises
With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises
With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises
With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise

SeekerofWisdom wrote:

Diebert wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:The universe did not birth consciousness. Consciousness evolves the universe.

Yeah, got that.

So you guys do not really understand dependent arising then? Since you've started to exclude some things from it right there.

Think he means there's no difference between the universe and consciousness. That would mean dependent.

There are two definitie and revealing claims there: that the universe (everything) does not cause consciousness and that consciousness is causing the universe or its movements.

Dependent arising means that they appear and move together: the appearance of consciousness and the universe. Dependent arising means that they keep birthing each other: causality.

Pam's list of causality means actually that anything at all arising would depend on ignorance: with one disturbance comes all other. This happens already before mental formation.

not separate

"Not" being such a divine seperator....

Dennis Mahar wrote:not separate

Not true. Consciousness is separate from the rest of the universe (unconsciousness.)

It's assumed/inferred that when an electron was conceived of by a mind that electrons are retroactive or always existed awaiting discovery.

that means universe exists independently of mind.

not so says buddha/nagarjuna

inherent existence is refuted

Electrons do not exist from their own side.

Dennis Mahar wrote:that means universe exists independently of mind.

No, it just means that object is distinguished from subject. All knowledge arises like that. Then we move forward qualifying this, sometimes also by quantifying.

Inherent existence is just the denial of causality in some instance, like saying that the universe did not cause consciousness. Inherent existence also means backtracking on a statement as if you didn't mean it. Inherent existence is perpetuating ignorance by lie.

Blah blah blah

Dennis Mahar wrote:that means universe exists independently of mind.

If the "universe" means everything, then the question of it existing independently on mind (or not) is irrelevant to begin with.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Blah blah blah

If this were true of your philosophy, bliss also is blah blah blah. Which is it, blah or bliss?

obladi oblada bliss :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib468ps4uFc

pure bliss blah :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSl49bTI1A

Pam's list of causality means actually that anything at all arising would depend on ignorance: with one disturbance comes all other. This happens already before mental formation.

This is true because the mental (kamma) formations that are supported by ignorance that give rise to the whole heap of suffering (samsara) cannot be discovered to have a beginning; for this reason the memory details of their attachments are irrelevant. Therefore the one whose path is to end suffering can be simplified to focusing entirely on the root supporting condition for the whole arising mess of things-entangled, the root supporting condition of attachment.

movingalways wrote: cannot be discovered to have a beginning; for this reason the memory details of their attachments are irrelevant.

This is why compassion comes into play. As we have the wisdom to understand this mind-boggling array of phenomena has no beginning, and we are dependent on our ignorance to try and comprehend the incomprehensible....

Kunga wrote:

movingalways wrote: cannot be discovered to have a beginning; for this reason the memory details of their attachments are irrelevant.

This is why compassion comes into play. As we have the wisdom to understand this mind-boggling array of phenomena has no beginning, and we are dependent on our ignorance to try and comprehend the incomprehensible....

But most people nowadays confuse pity and its condition "self-pity" with compassion. For that reason I speak not of it.

movingalways wrote:... focusing entirely on the root supporting condition for the whole arising mess of things-entangled, the root supporting condition of attachment.

But this is distinct from "clinging", which you wrote arises out of craving which arises of feeling, etc. Many people seem to confuse attachment with clinging. And ignorance with mistake.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Kunga wrote:

movingalways wrote: cannot be discovered to have a beginning; for this reason the memory details of their attachments are irrelevant.

This is why compassion comes into play. As we have the wisdom to understand this mind-boggling array of phenomena has no beginning, and we are dependent on our ignorance to try and comprehend the incomprehensible....

But most people nowadays confuse pity and its condition "self-pity" with compassion. For that reason I speak not of it.

But your view then, of compassion, is not compassion but pity. True compassion is not pity, but an altruistic ideal to go beyond the mediocre norms of apathy and pity, which are devoid of wisdom.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Many people seem to confuse attachment with clinging.

Can you give me one example where attachment isn't clinging ?

It is inferred that electrons are retroactive and always existed prior to a human mind conceiving them.

Correct?

Kunga.
just like me that person is seeking some happiness for his/her life
just like me that person is trying to avoid suffering in his/her life
just like me that person has known sadness. loneliness and despair.
just like me that person is seeking to fulfill his/her needs
just like me that person is learning about life

Correct?
Breakthrough?
Care.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Kunga.
just like me that person is seeking some happiness for his/her life
just like me that person is trying to avoid suffering in his/her life
just like me that person has known sadness. loneliness and despair.
just like me that person is seeking to fulfill his/her needs
just like me that person is learning about life

Correct?
Breakthrough?
Care.

yes...but it goes even deeper...overwhelmingly deep...

Bliss and blah blah blah Pam?

Shows how human being is shut tight in the house of language.

Dropping the word bliss in the area makes an impression like a hot potato in the hands.

Words like woman and happiness and enlightenmemt also impact like dynamite.

a self is predicated, conceptualised.
it exists in language
it feeds on quotes
it finds its identity in language

emptiness

The problem is not the self arising in language. It would be like saying the problem is having a self arising by our context: culture, economics, breath, kneejerk reactions and so on.

Even U. G. Krishnamurti, that rather silly man, knew:

• Because there is a constant demand on your part to experience everything that you look at, everything that you are feeling inside. If you don't do that, 'you' as you know yourself and as you experience yourself is coming to an end. That is a frightening thing. You don't want to come to an end; you want continuity. All the spiritual pursuits are in the direction of strengthening that continuity. So, all your experiences, all your meditations, all your sadhana -- all that you do is strengthening the 'self'. They are self-centered activities. Whatever you do to be free from the 'self' is also a self-centered activity. The process you adopt to attain what you call 'being' is also a 'becoming' process. So, there is no such thing as 'being'. Anything you do -- any movement, in any direction, on any level -- is a becoming process.

A discord between the being and the identities of the mind is healed.
a private and personal door is opened from which the being can watch the minds antics detachedly.
the container is interesting and the contents are void.

no maps, no footprints, no answers.

Oh well,
What's on the menu?
The head isn't in the collective consciousness, may as well go over and plug it in.

You can't watch it detachedly: it would create a split, a dishonest being thinking he has his own "self" somewhere in the cross-hairs. There's no "collective consciousness" just as there is no "thoughtless state". They're both products of polluted imagination, an inability to see their lack of existence, how it's becoming just an attempt to exist through such contraptions.

Some more tasty UG quoting for your hungry self to stuff itself on:

• If all the religious teachers tell us that you are going into a 'thoughtless state,' they are taking us all for a ride. They can promise you that in that thoughtless state -- in that state of silence, in that state of quietness, or in that state of a 'Quiet Mind,' or whatever phrase you want to use -- there will be this real 'bliss,' 'beatitude,' 'love,' 'religious joy,' and 'ecstatic state of being'. All that is balderdash. Because, that state -- if there is any state like the state of bliss -- it can never become part of your consciousness. It can never become part of your conscious existence. So, you might as well throw the whole thing -- the whole crap of these ideas, concepts and abstractions about the blissful states -- into a cocked hat, if I may use that American slang.