GENIUS FORUMS

RobertGreenSky wrote:And it is a good thing there is no fixed A because if there was we could cling to it and clinging is problematic - life is bad enough when we only believe we can cling to something. And it is a good thing no statement is ever absolutely true and for the same reason, that it would be a wild wild victory of The Monkey Chattering.

A somewhat predictable and expected reply, no doubt: but have you ever considered the Monkey's shelter & safety - its 'freedom' - are found exactly in this inability of handling absolute truth and the avoidance of a whole toolbox of nasty sharp tools that emerge from this iron & fire?

• Some talk about dying without even being born yet - some talk about release without ever having grasped a thing.

Dilbert,


You condescend so beautifully. Transcribed here in your honour is a gatha I've just come across and which might improve your thinking:


Merely using the word 'wisdom' reveals no wisdom.
Merely referencing 'nasty sharp tools' does not display their use.
Blowhards like you are invariably called on their pretention.
Do your wanking in front of someone else.


Don't just pay lipservice to iron and fire, boy, reveal them! Is lipservice all you're about? If so I'm sure I can think of something for your lips to service, something other than QRS arse and which is all you've serviced here.


The Monkey Chattering is a useful concept but I am not familiar with this 'absolute truth' with which you pretend acquaintance. I suspect that the former would be well-displayed in your handling of the latter, 'absolute truth' reading like 'pure bullshit' to me. I am awaiting your discussion of it, ever so worried that the few dull tools in my sack cannot answer your vajra brilliance.

RobertGreenSky wrote:Dilbert

Yeah, I like the work of Scott Adams too. I always used to add two horizontal bars to the L on any prints I encountered at offices.

You condescend so beautifully

You'll always see what your heart is full of, not?

Don't just pay lipservice to iron and fire, boy, reveal them!

Without serious intention there's never any revelation- and perhaps show is all that remains at that point. Amusement perhaps.

but I am not familiar with this 'absolute truth' with which you pretend acquaintance.

You should be since you wrote: "no statement is ever absolutely true". It's a start. Why stop there?

Dullbert van Rhijn wrote:

RobertGreenSky wrote:

You condescend so beautifully

You'll always see what your heart is full of, not?

You were caught vapidly condescending but you turned it around and accused me of it. Brilliant! However did you think of it? Please give us an insight into your creative processes. Geniuses are so rare; I'm ever so glad I've discovered a veritable nest of advanced thinkers, like you!


That's two posts in a row you've given me nothing. You only want to spar yet you're too chickenshit to risk anything at it.

'No statement is absolutely true' is just a restatement of Nagarjuna. Do you know who that is? Are you really unfamiliar with the concept 'no statement is absolutely true'?

Robert, I ask this of you as a friend - please don't come back to message boards until after your cardiac cath.

I've changed emails since we last wrote, so please pm me your email address, and I'll let you know if there is anything pressing you have to attend to on here. Please just go meditate now.

*cyberhugs* I don't want to have to worry about you disappearing again, and I certainly don't want you kicking off before your time.

RobertGreenSky wrote:'No statement is absolutely true' is just a restatement of Nagarjuna.

Ah, yes, as usual, Robert, all you can ever do is quote and defer to people.

Do you know who that is?

What does it matter if he does or doesn't?

Are you really unfamiliar with the concept 'no statement is absolutely true'?

I suspect he's familiar with the contradiction contained therein.

The World Honoured Dan wrote:

Robbydharma wrote:'No statement is absolutely true' is just a restatement of Nagarjuna.

Ah, yes, as usual, Robert, all you can ever do is quote and defer to people.

Do you know who that is?

What does it matter if he does or doesn't?

Are you really unfamiliar with the concept 'no statement is absolutely true'?

I suspect he's familiar with the contradiction contained therein.

Dan, why do you pull that shit? Sometimes it is enough to quote and defer as you would have it. On other occasions I have, e.g., shown that an argument about Nag. represented not only disagreement with him but also agreement with his contemporary opponents. It was David who flubbed that and you're flubbing it when you write '... the contradiction contained therein' and btw you have put yourself into a position in which the Maharishi Mahesh Vassago once found himself. Four years after David and I debated you still don't understand something ... rudimental. Whether I defer or not, and whether to Nagarjuna, or Zhuangzi, Bodhidharma, Hui-neng, or B. O. Krishnamurti, it is the point being made which matters.

The pacification of all objectification
And the pacification of illusion:
No Dharma was taught by the Buddha
At any time, in any place, to any person.

- The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, tr. Jay L. Garfield, Chapter XXV, 'Examination of Nirvana', p. 76.

Sometimes it is fine by itself and sometimes it requires explication or application or a cleverly captioned picture of a cat. Bright teenagers should be able to understand what is meant by samvriti and by paramartha and what is the distinction. Four years after David and I debated the distinction eludes you, not of course in understanding it but rather in applying it. You can have Nagarjuna and whatever 'unburdening' your reading of him might encourage, or you can have Rational Enlightenment, but I don't think you can have both. Elizabeth being all too right about my participation, the fleshing out of that would have to wait.


'What does it matter if he does or doesn't?' - Dan


Perhaps not much since Diebert is only interested in lording it over someone. Nagarjuna had profound influence on Buddhism and if Diebert can stop playing enlightenment games he could begin to understand why that is. The point of such games is the pretense of understanding, The Monkey Chattering in very ironic expression. Also ironically, Nagarjuna, in undermining our reliance on thinking, offers Diebert a solution to those alluring yet ultimately empty - :D - reveries.


I'll be back before too long; label kindly.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Robert, I ask this of you as a friend - please don't come back to message boards until after your cardiac cath.

I've changed emails since we last wrote, so please pm me your email address, and I'll let you know if there is anything pressing you have to attend to on here. Please just go meditate now.

*cyberhugs* I don't want to have to worry about you disappearing again, and I certainly don't want you kicking off before your time.

Elizabeth,

I've been giving myself only 'light duty' but you are right and after this is posted I will go be quiet. When I do eventually get back to Tampa I'll be honoured to see you. The Internet is now real life even if some people resist the fact of it. Some still relate to it as if it were a fad while others are dishonest in their representations of themselves. Caring can be expressed together over tea or on the telephone or now through email, but I am looking forward to being able to share a real hug instead of a cyberhug. Like all our Skype group you are a treasure.


Robert

RobertGreenSky wrote: You were caught vapidly condescending but you turned it around and accused me of it. Brilliant! However did you think of it? Please give us an insight into your creative processes.

This is how all these processes work behind the scenes; a real wilderness of mirrors. What makes you think you have escaped?

'No statement is absolutely true' is just a restatement of Nagarjuna. Do you know who that is? Are you really unfamiliar with the concept 'no statement is absolutely true'?

As I already said it can be a good start to understand that no statement can be absolutely true. It has many upsetting consequences for dogmatism, fundamentalism and so on. It's a good example of how an absolute can have profound meaning when applied. And why stop there? The statement that no statement is absolutely true must be suspicious too. And of course, one could realize that while statements themselves are relative, they can easily describe, finger-point in their context to absolutes.

Actually one realizes that this is all what one is doing already, no matter the mentation. The questions which remain are which absolutes and in how far contradiction is still part of the realization.