GENIUS FORUMS

What is the path to the end of suffering?

Kill all pretenders.

Tenver- wrote:If you're alive, you experience joy and suffering.

If you're dead (in spirit and motion), you experience apathy and abstinence.

Pick your poision. The world needs living people anyways, and considering the options, it seems the best choice.

Yes, this is good direction.

Deebs old salt, you're in a highly energized state now, and that can be special. Out of habit, you may associate that level of energy with anger. Disconnect identification with and attachment to the anger and the energy remains, which can be used to your advantage, and thus the advantage of any with whom you contact. This energy can be directed to physical activities, and to mental activities. In keeping with the intent of truth, awareness of balance can impartially determine where to direct the energy. For example, if you've been physically active, do some writing. If you've been in front of the computer for an extended period, direct the energy to something physical. To direct the energy into anger is something you must do if you do it, but perspective on the nature energy can open new alternatives, a path of non-attachment incompatible with suffering.

Cahoot wrote:Deebs old salt, you're in a highly energized state now, and that can be special.

You have the intuition of a stale crop of cabbage. Just more Oprah psychology or ideas copied from Reader's Digest. You are still hiding from suffering and life, overreacting to any push or pull. What I'm writing has been very consistent over the years and always in terms of flushing out pretense. In your case my style of the day might look abrasive but that's just because you appear to be hiding in a thick shell of false comfortable Zen. With every response you're digging that hole deeper, Coot. Watch out, by the end of the week you'll fall in.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Beingof1

I completely agree and had previously been tossing up between ideas I saw as rejection or acceptance. Good to see others are of t he same mindset with acceptance.

Moving always

Did you say we had control over our actions and how we respond/progress? I was under the impression everything we say or think or do, even enlightenment, involved no free choice whatsoever.

My apologies for taking so long to respond, Seeker, I forgot about my post in this thread.

Is not awareness of (enlightenment of) causation not a conscious activity? To suggest that causation involves no consciousness of the causes that both produce and end suffering is to deny your being caused to find a cause (path) to end suffering, the topic of this thread.

To be aware of the cause of suffering, causing the formation of the sense body, and of how to cause the end of the cause of suffering, not to cause the formation of the sense body, is causation-in-action, conscious causation. The key point here is that when the sense body is not caused to be formed, the unfolding of conscious causality continues. How can it not? Causality is infinite.

As an aside, consciousness of the cause of suffering, the sense body, is not the same as believing the sense body to be good or evil. Suffering is suffering.

Dan Rowden wrote:You can't accept something without understanding it. Once you understand it, acceptance becomes meaningless. There's nothing to accept or reject. Both notions are ultimately silly.

So Dan, you want us to accept your idea that there is nothing to accept or reject about what you understand?

Silly is as silly does.

Beingof1 wrote:So Dan, you want us to accept your idea that there is nothing to accept or reject about what you understand?

I think he wants people to understand, not "accept" anything. Sometimes we need to understand things we tend to utterly reject with every inch of our being.

movingalways wrote:
My apologies for taking so long to respond, Seeker, I forgot about my post in this thread.

Is not awareness of (enlightenment of) causation not a conscious activity? To suggest that causation involves no consciousness of the causes that both produce and end suffering is to deny your being caused to find a cause (path) to end suffering, the topic of this thread.

To be aware of the cause of suffering, causing the formation of the sense body, and of how to cause the end of the cause of suffering, not to cause the formation of the sense body, is causation-in-action, conscious causation. The key point here is that when the sense body is not caused to be formed, the unfolding of conscious causality continues. How can it not? Causality is infinite.

As an aside, consciousness of the cause of suffering, the sense body, is not the same as believing the sense body to be good or evil. Suffering is suffering.

No worries. Yes I believe it to be a conscious activity, one is consciously aware of experience including choice. That isn't equated with having power or choice over those causes, or even over our consciousness of those causes.

From direct experience it seems to me that even my awareness, or lack of awareness, attachment or non-attachment, is in no way under influence by 'me', I am only aware of these occurrences. You may have a different understanding.

This is the very idea I was wrestling with, must the cause for the sense body to be formed cease for suffering to cease? Cahoot blatantly responds with no, one can live day to day without any suffering.

Could both paths be possible? You say 'suffering is suffering', but does it have to be?

Suffering is empty, when awareness of the fact that suffering is empty is held, (non-attachment from the identity of suffering and its negative connotations) it is no longer felt as suffering, from my experience this is very possible.


I've previously made a mental note to thank anyone that avoids long wasteful argumentative 'crap', or at least includes any attempt at philosophical discussion, which really should be the focus of every post on a forum such as this one. So thank you Pam.

No worries. Yes I believe it to be a conscious activity, one is consciously aware of experience including choice. That isn't equated with having power or choice over those causes, or even over our consciousness of those causes.

From direct experience it seems to me that even my awareness, or lack of awareness, attachment or non-attachment, is in no way under influence by 'me', I am only aware of these occurrences. You may have a different understanding.

How can one be consciously aware of causation and at the same time have no influence over causation?

This is the very idea I was wrestling with, must the cause for the sense body to be formed cease for suffering to cease? Cahoot blatantly responds with no, one can live day to day without any suffering.

Could both paths be possible? You say 'suffering is suffering', but does it have to be?

Suffering is empty, when awareness of the fact that suffering is empty is held, (non-attachment from the identity of suffering and its negative connotations) it is no longer felt as suffering, from my experience this is very possible.

If you have to hold to awareness of the truth of the emptiness of suffering, are you still not aware of suffering?

I've previously made a mental note to thank anyone that avoids long wasteful argumentative 'crap', or at least includes any attempt at philosophical discussion, which really should be the focus of every post on a forum such as this one. So thank you Pam.

I agree. Ego-bumping is (literally) a waste of time.

movingalways wrote:How can one be consciously aware of causation and at the same time have no influence over causation?

I'm not sure of the 'how' but it is happening. For example, do you believe you have influence over your following thoughts?

From what has been witnessed, I cannot plan my reactions/thoughts, or what those thoughts lead too. They just occur. Even meditation and non-attachment just occur. The same way you could not say you decided it would rain the other day, I could not say I decided my actions.

Isn't this a matter of free will? Even as this writing is being experienced, I am certain these are manifestations of form, I would not take 'credit' for these words, I do not believe I have control over form or whatever experience arises of the mind, these words are dependently originated, not a choice of mine. (No ego here to make a choice, no self-existing entity or will)

movingalways wrote:If you have to hold to awareness of the truth of the emptiness of suffering, are you still not aware of suffering?

Well what then is suffering? If it is not being experienced as bad,negative,hurting, can it be called suffering?

I agree. Ego-bumping is (literally) a waste of time.

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
you give it meaning.
meaning maker.
Bossy boots.
ha ha.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

I agree. Ego-bumping is (literally) a waste of time.

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
you give it meaning.
meaning maker.
Bossy boots.
ha ha.

Bossy boots = meaning maker.

Kettle, pot, ha ha.

(;
spirit touching spirit OK?

movingalways wrote:
How can one be consciously aware of causation and at the same time have no influence over causation?



I'm not sure of the 'how' but it is happening. For example, do you believe you have influence over your following thoughts?

From what has been witnessed, I cannot plan my reactions/thoughts, or what those thoughts lead too. They just occur. Even meditation and non-attachment just occur. The same way you could not say you decided it would rain the other day, I could not say I decided my actions.

There is a relationship between the "I" and the infinite, is there not, as if two-in-one:

I and the Father are One (Christ)
God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (Christ)
The born and the unborn (The Buddha)
The Parent and Child Luminosity (Tibetan Buddhism)
The ultimate and the conventional (Nagarjuna)
Motion and Rest (Gospel of Thomas)
Be still and know I am God (Old Testament)
Spirit touching spirit (I added this after seeing Dennis' response to me) :-)

Isn't this a matter of free will? Even as this writing is being experienced, I am certain these are manifestations of form, I would not take 'credit' for these words, I do not believe I have control over form or whatever experience arises of the mind, these words are dependently originated, not a choice of mine. (No ego here to make a choice, no self-existing entity or will)

It is not a matter of taking 'credit' for one's thoughts, such delusion belongs in the domain of ignorance, the domain of ego. But there is conscious awareness of listening or waiting for right speech or right action is there not? What is 'doing' this listening? What is doing the writing or moving that follows the listening? Do you not base your posts here on your conscious awareness of emptiness? What happens when you type something that doesn't perfectly reflect this awareness? Do you leave those imperfect words on the screen or do you change them?

It is true that there is but one consciousness with no self or ego present, but it is also true that this one consciousness expresses itself individually. To deny this is to deny that you and I do not express ourselves using different understandings of suffering and different words to express our different understandings.

movingalways wrote:
If you have to hold to awareness of the truth of the emptiness of suffering, are you still not aware of suffering?


Well what then is suffering? If it is not being experienced as bad,negative,hurting, can it be called suffering?

I understand the condition of suffering to cause pain and hurting, and yes, there is an awareness present of 'bad/negative' or there wouldn't be the consciousness of wanting its end. What suffering is not, however, is evil. The concept of evil belongs to the concept of ego, the concept of ignorance.

Dennis Mahar wrote:(;
spirit touching spirit OK?

There is always only this. :-)

Expanding upon your bossy-pants response to me to include all of your posts, are you not making meaning while in the same breath declaring meaning to be meaningless? I understand that meaning is ever changing, therefore is never fixed in any given moment (spirit is ever expanding/evolving) - is that what you mean :-) when you declare meaning to be meaningless?

As I see it, meaning-making does not conflict with awareness of emptiness. For this reason, for me, Suchness is a more perfect (descriptive) concept than is Emptiness to define the nature of reality.

Wikipedia:

Tathata (Sanskrit, Pali तथता tathatā; Chinese: 真如) is variously translated as "thusness" or "suchness". It is a central concept in Buddhism, and is of particular significance in Zen Buddhism. The synonym dharmatā is also often used. While alive the Buddha referred to himself as Tathagata, which can mean either "One who has thus come" or "One who has thus gone",[1] and interpreted correctly can be read as "One who has arrived at suchness". Tathatā as a central concept of Buddhism expresses appreciation of the true nature of reality in any given moment. As no moment is exactly the same, each one can be savored for what occurs at that precise time, whether it is thought of as being "good" or "bad". In the early texts, it is described as an aspect of nibbānā.

movingalways wrote:. But there is conscious awareness of listening or waiting for right speech or right action is there not? What is 'doing' this listening? What is doing the writing or moving that follows the listening? Do you not base your posts here on your conscious awareness of emptiness? What happens when you type something that doesn't perfectly reflect this awareness? Do you leave those imperfect words on the screen or do you change them?

Are you equating conscious awareness of experience with having control over what occurs in that experience?

There being the experience of listening, writing, moving, post editing, and the conscious awareness of these, is not related to actually influencing what is heard, written, or edited.

Are you in control of, or do you make a conscious decision as to what thought may appear, or what sensation may follow? To me this idea is absurd and without any basis. There being individual/different experiences is also not related to having influence over that individual experience or how it will play out.

movingalways wrote:I and the Father are One (Christ)
God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (Christ)
The born and the unborn (The Buddha)
The Parent and Child Luminosity (Tibetan Buddhism)
The ultimate and the conventional (Nagarjuna)
Motion and Rest (Gospel of Thomas)
Be still and know I am God (Old Testament)
Spirit touching spirit (I added this after seeing Dennis' response to me) :-)

Experience, form, manifestations, consciousness, just this, where does a choice/influence/decision/control over what occurs in these experiences come in?

Are we not talking about free will? You can't have it and not have it, which is it?

Whatever one wants to call what is happening between the two-in-one, it is a conscious activity of movement of spirit, conscious being the operative word. To continue debating what free will or control or influence means, to me, to be a pointless exercise. From this point forward, 'conscious' is the only word I will use when referring to the relationship between Rest and Motion of spirit. So thank you for causing me to realize this.

I and the Father are One. The Father causes me to be conscious of ignorance and suffering. What is caused of this consciousness is between the Father and me. As it is for every individual spirit of understanding that is caused. Easy peasy. :-)

Expanding upon your bossy-pants response to me to include all of your posts, are you not making meaning while in the same breath declaring meaning to be meaningless? I understand that meaning is ever changing, therefore is never fixed in any given moment (spirit is ever expanding/evolving) - is that what you mean :-) when you declare meaning to be meaningless?

meaning is always/already 'thus gone' before, whilst and after meaningfulness is.
whilst meaningful, Spirit enters into the spirit of it.
even into the spirit of war.
hence the possibility of nondiscrimination.

The old man, back in the day, used to come home pissed from the pub and head straight to the cutlery drawer to make sure the cutlery was properly dried and polished to a gleaming lustre.
If it wasn't us kids got hammered.
then he stopped after a while.
meaning maker.
(bee in a bottle, alexian)

expressed in the Diebert model.

movingalways wrote:Whatever one wants to call what is happening between the two-in-one, it is a conscious activity of movement of spirit, conscious being the operative word. To continue debating what free will or control or influence means, to me, to be a pointless exercise. From this point forward, 'conscious' is the only word I will use when referring to the relationship between Rest and Motion of spirit. So thank you for causing me to realize this.

I and the Father are One. The Father causes me to be conscious of ignorance and suffering. What is caused of this consciousness is between the Father and me. As it is for every individual spirit of understanding that is caused. Easy peasy. :-)

Ok well I wouldn't be arguing about us being conscious of the process so no problems there.

Reminds me of that which says something along the lines of 'Only those who are called can enter'. I see this as referring to the truth that certain conditions must be present that go beyond a simple option of any individual. Suffering being one of these conditions... not too hot, not too cold, just right.

Domain, meaning maker.
Dominus, hooded, cloaked.

the first domino is 'belief in inherent existence'.
push that domino over and 'presto', domino effect,
the chain collapses.

causality opens up.
this ceases, that ceases
this arises, that arises

conditional master mastering conditions.

meaning is a possibility.
It walks like a walk in the park.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

movingalways wrote:Whatever one wants to call what is happening between the two-in-one, it is a conscious activity of movement of spirit, conscious being the operative word. To continue debating what free will or control or influence means, to me, to be a pointless exercise. From this point forward, 'conscious' is the only word I will use when referring to the relationship between Rest and Motion of spirit. So thank you for causing me to realize this.

I and the Father are One. The Father causes me to be conscious of ignorance and suffering. What is caused of this consciousness is between the Father and me. As it is for every individual spirit of understanding that is caused. Easy peasy. :-)

Ok well I wouldn't be arguing about us being conscious of the process so no problems there.

Reminds me of that which says something along the lines of 'Only those who are called can enter'. I see this as referring to the truth that certain conditions must be present that go beyond a simple option of any individual. Suffering being one of these conditions... not too hot, not too cold, just right.

Suffering is the condition of life. The Buddha declared this truth upon returning from his meditation under the Bodhi tree, and he was right. Pain, pleasure, pain, pleasure, the man of earth cannot avoid the recycling of these two conditions. For a moment or for a time he can find the balance between the two, as you say, "just right", but what he cannot find while he remains a slave to his breath of pain and pleasure is a permanent balance. Even the deepest of meditators must answer the call of hunger and thirst or relinquish the breath.

From my experience, which I do believe was also the experience of the Buddha, the man of earth who does not flinch from the truth of the duality of pain and pleasure is given the way/ability to bear the union or reconciliation of both. Why? Logic dictates that the worlds of causality are infinite. That when one discovers the caused nature of one world, in this case, the natural law of awareness of pain and pleasure, that it is time to move on/be moved on to discover the caused nature of other worlds. In other words, 'it's' all about Discovery. Ending, beginning, ending, beginning, the alpha and the omega.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Domain, meaning maker.
Dominus, hooded, cloaked.

the first domino is 'belief in inherent existence'.
push that domino over and 'presto', domino effect,
the chain collapses.

causality opens up.
this ceases, that ceases
this arises, that arises

conditional master mastering conditions.

meaning is a possibility.
It walks like a walk in the park.

Dropping one's belief in inherent existence does not remove one from being caused to know/experience, ad infinitum, dependent origination of pain and pleasure.

Dennis Mahar wrote: conditional master mastering conditions.

meaning is a possibility.
It walks like a walk in the park.

Thought you were getting a bit shaky lately! In terms of your over the top Dennis-speak, nice to see some more good puns, or whatever they may be called. Conditionally mastering conditions, will have to quote that.


That all seemed too intelligent for this time Moving, my mind will have to get back to you tomorrow.

movingalways wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:Domain, meaning maker.
Dominus, hooded, cloaked.

the first domino is 'belief in inherent existence'.
push that domino over and 'presto', domino effect,
the chain collapses.

causality opens up.
this ceases, that ceases
this arises, that arises

conditional master mastering conditions.

meaning is a possibility.
It walks like a walk in the park.

Dropping one's belief in inherent existence does not remove one from being caused to know/experience, ad infinitum, dependent origination of pain and pleasure.

I will go so far as to say that dropping one's belief in inherent existence brings one face to face with the dependent origination of pain and pleasure.

Dropping one's belief in inherent existence does not remove one from being caused to know/experience, ad infinitum, dependent origination of pain and pleasure.

It's a good start.
Beginner's Mind isn't for casting aside like it's a problem to put up with.
An experience of luxuriousness, deep contentment, lightness, a tinge of exquisite sadness which is for the memories of several possibilities for love that fell by the way.
In the experience when is love ever without a tinge of sadness. It gets snatched away. Death by a thousand tiny, tiny little cuts. Tiny, tiny little threads. A delicate matter.
Listening.

All in good time as they say.

Most people are looking about for the 'grant-a-wish fairy' to wave her magic wand.
not that, not that.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Dropping one's belief in inherent existence does not remove one from being caused to know/experience, ad infinitum, dependent origination of pain and pleasure.

It's a good start.
Beginner's Mind isn't for casting aside like it's a problem to put up with.
An experience of luxuriousness, deep contentment, lightness, a tinge of exquisite sadness which is for the memories of several possibilities for love that fell by the way.
In the experience when is love ever without a tinge of sadness. It gets snatched away. Death by a thousand tiny, tiny little cuts. Tiny, tiny little threads. A delicate matter.
Listening.

All in good time as they say.

Most people are looking about for the 'grant-a-wish fairy' to wave her magic wand.
not that, not that.

Yes, for love that falls by the way. Love of a woman, love of a man, love of cheesecake, love of wisdom. Death by a thousand tiny, tiny little cuts. Delicate, sometimes, sometimes not so much.

The time for death of life is happening now, right this moment.

The question that begs to be answered is the reason why.