GENIUS FORUMS

Sure, you can simplify what I'm saying as A=A. But for anyone seeking advice, telling them to use A=A wont help much. I look at A=A as a foundation, not something particularly useful for someone looking to begin their life as a thinker. I'm sure you and I can both agree how people love to complicate things. A person needs to simplify themselves before they can understand something as fundamental as A=A.

Nick wrote:Sure, you can simplify what I'm saying as A=A. But for anyone seeking advice, telling them to use A=A wont help much. I look at A=A as a foundation, not something particularly useful for someone looking to begin their life as a thinker. I'm sure you and I can both agree how people love to complicate things. A person needs to simplify themselves before they can understand something as fundamental as A=A.

Absolotely!

T C

T C

T C

Technical Problems

Frank,

What you seem to be saying Sapius is Suffering arises from having a Viewpoint that splits the Totality up...
Conventionally, our Minds are evaluating what arises and assigning it to a basic pair of Categories called Good or Bad...or Yes or No...
or 'I want this or 'I don't want this'...

Well, not exactly. What I am saying is, 2 – 1 – 2, and what you are pointing to is _ 1 – 2 – 1, which in my opinion is a mistake. So the rest of your post follows the 1-2-1 thought and hence does not apply.

I will try to explain.

Take 1 as in what we think as the “unity”, Tao, Emptiness, Void, Reliaty, the “Real” Self, The Universal Consciousness, Infinity, etc, etc. What I mean is, all that one thinks is that which “underlies”, “runs” things, “makes” things HAPPEN, the “Truth” that underlines the “illusory-ness” of things. And take 2 as Duality, the subject object side, that is consciousness, A=A, which by no means or method can be removed even from the most infinitely small particle, for that is EXISTSNCE, otherwise nothing exists.

(Diebert, I need your help to explicitly explain how the subject object part is an inherent property of existence, which I think you have explained else where, and that nothing would exist without it, even to the extant of the most infinitely small particle where verbal or conceptual thought of subject/object is not necessary to recognize, differentiate, and react in the ways things do.)

Frank, now to analyze what you have interpreted. Which is 1 – 2 – 1. You are starting from the point that there is some True oneness (1), which apparently you have conceptualized remaining in duality (2) and that we split this oneness (through the subject/object experience) and that creates “sufferings”, and that we may be driven to recapture this oneness which we suppose to be the Truth, hence removal of “sufferings”. This is absolutely humbug in my opinion.

What I’m saying is, 2 – 1 –2, where 2 (the dual nature, subject/object thang) is the beginning and the ending point, and that always remains the Reality. The 1, Oneness of all the there is, is possible only through conceptualization, and this concept cannot exist without the 2, and that this concept of Oneness is also Reality, for what in all existence could NOT be Reality, and that the wholeness of 2 has to sink in as a conceptual One-ness, NOT literally 1, and not forget the inherency of 2 at the same time. This has to sink in ones psyche to actually have a very changed perspective of existence, in and of every moment of every casually created split-second of the living NOW.

Now isn’t THAT hilarious? Because in Realizing the essence of existence, I have actually found nothing! Except that I KNOW that I exist, including absolutely All that there IS, and this concept is absolutely true, for what is it that is NOT Reality? Convince me otherwise, logically speaking of course.

The problem is, when one says that things are but ripples, another immediately associates that with water, whereas, when speaking about existence, there is actually no water there, just ripples, and this is a logical impossibility according to the 4 dimensional logic that we are necessarily bound to, but there are worlds beyond the sky that we cannot cross because conceptualization is what makes us take the Sky for Reality, and the same conceptualization can take us beyond the skies. All that is needed is the strength, conviction, to travel the worlds without crossing your doorstep. And that is absolutely possible.
People call that ‘water’ a Void, Emptiness, Tao, or whatever, which actually in hampering the progress in opening up a mind to impossible possibilities, for there actually is no ‘water’ AT ALL. No “underlying” “thing”, No actual or literal “One”, but only the one-NESS in conceptualization. Which has to be achieved. Once this sinks in, completely, and one travels the conceptual world freely, one may experience certain uncanny experiences that lets one float away in a Real world, Literally, fully conscious of what is being experienced, and ALL of it is right here, in and of the NOW.

I must have been in a good mood that I think that this has come out somewhat right. However, I still think this will sound contradictory, but I’m absolutely clear on the matter. I cannot blame anyone for not understanding, because as I mentioned, certain experiences that come after the ‘floating’ freely in a conceptual world’, which were initially a shock for me, kind of confirmed without an iota of a doubt, that which I already knew. But reaching that point of ‘floating freely in a conceptual world’, is the most difficult part to reach in the first place, and I see none that have achieved that, except for who I was quite recently introduced to, U G Krishnamurthi. Only if people could achieve what he has, in what he calls the “Death Of Knowledge”, but people don’t even understand what he actually means, that is the sad part.

However, nothing really matters, so enjoy. Only a person who has been through an unbelievable spiritual turmoil could have said, Ignorance is bliss, for one cannot even imagine what it takes to actually Know, that there was nothing to know in the first place.

There is no Water, just ripples, and that is an absolute fact. I would say, learn to enjoy the ripples, consciously, logically, and reasonably. There are sparks of Truth in all that there is, including the superficial fire and smoke that it creates, and All of it is Reality. Find the spark conceptually, and let causality show you the wonders of a conceptually alive spiritual world.

Frank, not all things are that hilarious, they become according to how and what one wants them to mean, including the meaninglessness, which would mean nothing unless you understand what you really mean by meaninglessness. And yet… I have actually said nothing really meaningful.

sapius:

Frank, now to analyze what you have interpreted. Which is 1 – 2 – 1. You are starting from the point that there is some True oneness (1), which apparently you have conceptualized remaining in duality (2) and that we split this oneness (through the subject/object experience) and that creates “sufferings”, and that we may be driven to recapture this oneness which we suppose to be the Truth, hence removal of “sufferings”. This is absolutely humbug in my opinion.

Yeah, that's the picture I have...and that relief from Suffering is achieved by spotting the flawed interpretation....I look for the Aha moment where the whole mental construct collapses, when the Lie is exposed...
...it seems mental constructs that persist contain a Lie...that the lie is the cause of the Suffering...
..when the Truth is revealed by the Lie's exposure, the Suffering vanishes...it is shown that the whole damn thing was empty and meaningless...
I think 'Culture' runs on Bullshit and one has to 'tag along' somewhat....where can you escape to anyway?...except the Sanctuary of a Still Mind.

What I’m saying is, 2 – 1 –2, where 2 (the dual nature, subject/object thang) is the beginning and the ending point, and that always remains the Reality. The 1, Oneness of all the there is, is possible only through conceptualization, and this concept cannot exist without the 2, and that this concept of Oneness is also Reality, for what in all existence could NOT be Reality, and that the wholeness of 2 has to sink in as a conceptual One-ness, NOT literally 1, and not forget the inherency of 2 at the same time. This has to sink in ones psyche to actually have a very changed perspective of existence, in and of every moment of every casually created split-second of the living NOW.

That's a neat package..it looks good.
What you are saying is you couldn't get a Show on the Road without duality or conflict...that nothing could happen...
that recognition plus differentiation produces action...that the whole thing is set up for Activity to occur...a kind of Game.
That conception of Oneness is a position in the Game that breaks the Code and delivers a Still Mind while the Game and the Players continue to swirl about oneself...

It's hilarious because Suffering is optional depending on what you are recognising and differentiating and acting upon...

frank

DHodges wrote:

Sapius wrote:You cannot even phantom what Unwise has experienced. Why can’t you even be tolerant enough to give him the benefit of doubt? Why the pride? Do you claim to be “enlightened”? A “Buddha”? In that case I would humbly say, good for you, now shove it! (with a smile, of course) :)

When it comes to enlightenment, no one gets the benefit of the doubt. It is an extraordinary claim, and demands extraordinary evidence in order to be taken seriously.

That's all I can say on it, since I am not even sure if there is such a thing or not, or exactly what it is.

Sorry, I missed your post.

Dave, if you are not sure if there is such a thing as 'enlightenment', or don't know exactly what it is, why do you think it is an extraordinary claim? OR that it demands extraordinary evidence?

On the other hand, you have exactly no real evidence even of a tree. Do you?

I think you know what "enlightenment" is, otherwise you would not be saying that I don't exactly know what 'enlightenment' is. The fact that you are using the word 'enlightenment' shows that you know such a word, and are using it meaningfully as previously established.

Try understadning UG Krishnamurthy, and his 'death of knowledge', and you will know why he says there is no such thing as 'enlightenment', with full convictions. AND he is right. Simply because people like you ask for evidence when generally one cannot even know for sure if a tree exists. He says rightly that he dosen't even know for sure if a mind exists, so where does that leave real questioning?

When you Really Know that there is no real evidence for a tree, which is the first step so to speak, you will not ask another any evidence for "enlightenment". Either you know it, or you don’t. You can’t ask another for evidence; one’s mind becomes the evidence, when you know what a mind is.

Frank,

It's hilarious because Suffering is optional depending on what you are recognizing and differentiating and acting upon...

Talk about being on the same page… hehehe… I have never stopped “laughing” since, so where or when can I have time to really experience “sufferings”?! :D

I think 'Culture' runs on Bullshit and one has to 'tag along' somewhat....where can you escape to anyway?...except the Sanctuary of a Still Mind.

True, I know one cannot escape, but however, ‘Still Mind’ is not for me, for it remains dynamic even in a supposed Stillness. Existence, at any given moment is not static, it CANNOT be. Good luck to them who find reality in “stillness”.

I’m sure by ‘stillness’ you mean wiping out the previous, and re-thinking, and now that becomes ones script. It is only a momentary ‘stillness’, between the wiping out and re-thinking, which actually in not stillness at all, there is some action taking place, for causality cannot be still even for the most infinite of fractions, in and of motion, and that is absolutely necessary for any thing to be ‘happening’, including a supposed “stillness”.

I don’t understand one thing, (not really though), when one KNOWS that causality has to necessarily be dynamic, and any ‘thing’ is nothing more than that, then why is one trying to “Still” any thing at all. Can one ‘still’ causality? Is Mind above of beyond that? Is it not itself bound by causality? And finally, amazingly, how “logically” stupid can the same Mind be in not Realizing just THAT? What can I say… :D

Hence, it all lies in the Realization, not even in and of the Mind. Do I make sense there, Frank?

sapius:

I’m sure by ‘stillness’ you mean wiping out the previous, and re-thinking, and now that becomes ones script. It is only a momentary ‘stillness’, between the wiping out and re-thinking, which actually in not stillness at all, there is some action taking place, for causality cannot be still even for the most infinite of fractions, in and of motion, and that is absolutely necessary for any thing to be ‘happening’, including a supposed “stillness”.

It's like a Runaway Train...this cause and effect...this process...this chain of causation..

We have to get out front and lay new track...hahaha...hahaha...hahaha

It's a Gas!

frank

Frank,

It's like a Runaway Train...this cause and effect...this process...this chain of causation..

You see, it has to necessarily be a step-by-step understanding, and a step-by-step realization, that results in a cumulative Realization, as long as one makes the effort to keep each and every little realizations in mind, without forgetting any even for a moment.

Now, about the ‘wiping out’ of the previously known. The next logical question should be, how can on ‘wipe out’ the previously known?

Nothing is actually being wiped out in a way, for the same reason – causality. What is actually happening is that the previous conclusions are being automatically wiped out due to open minded thinking, thinking on what you know, and start reasoning over it. New conclusions begin replacing the old ones, and the old ones must never come back. But unfortunately and fortunately, it is the doubtful nature of the mind that does not allow this to happen, easily, and it is the same doubtful - questioning nature, that leads to clarity. Amazing! Isn’t it?

Think of it as on a slide rule. You start from one extreme end, say left, and as your conclusions are being replaced, the pointer keeps moving to the right, until newer conclusions push it all the way to the extreme right, and Bang! The problem is, that generally this pointer keeps fluctuating up and down within a certain area, some areas may be to the left and some to the right, say the left being the people relying more and more on faith, and right more on reasoning, but their pointers keep fluctuating within their own area too, without much progress, because of their own doubt and uncertainty. The more that it can be pushed to the right, the more the chances of final Realization.

We have to get out front and lay new track...

hahaha...hahaha...hahaha

Hold on, no laughter yet. The next step is to always keep in mind; “WE” are actually doing NOTHING, laying no tracks. It is all caused, and that absolutely no ‘THING’, including that what we think as “us” or “our minds”, is no more than causality at work, and that concept of ‘causality’ also disappears, because one is now aware of the living NOW, and does not see causality because of its infiniteness, with no beginning or end, the Alpha and Omega, and hence cannot be considered a ‘thing’, just as Totality, and hence can only be conceptualized, and how real an existence could ‘conceptualizations’ have, when even the mind is a thing, and we already know the non-inherency, impermanency, of THINGS.

So where is causality? Show me please… The only Reality is NOW, and simply IS, and I can REALLY Know just that and only that, nothing else, absolutely. So how much do I actually know? Eh? hehehe...

Confusing? Contradictory? Not at all.

Once all of the above, that includes all of those little logical conclusions, including the above paragraph, sinks into ones psyche, then one cannot really stop laughing. Or in other words, look for any more tranquility or peace of mind. The End! That's MY bliss, I can never knnow anothers.

Now, one can HAHAHA…... for the rest of HIS existance.

It is not like gaining any degree, nor a title, but simply knowing the answer to a very trivial puzzle. We simply conceptualize it as the mother of all puzzles, because we start with such an attitude, trying to grasp at a previously conceptualized high pedestal. But in this case, one thing is for sure, each small conclusion is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, to be kept in your pocket, until the last piece is found, and the last piece is not always the same for all, hence there is no particular “last” piece as such, and no particular "path", because it is not a sequential step by step thing, and hence multiple ways to reach the same Realization. Any one can start with any piece, and end with any, it is the complexity of causality that does it all, and hence, one can show just the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, but cannot show the Big Picture, because that is an absolutely individual Realization, hence that stupid finger pointing to that stupid moon thing.

The more one is full of himself, has pride in what he knows, the less likely he is to open up to the fact that he knows nothing, and hence, even in knowing existence, I have actually known nothing, All is just IS, so who the hell am “I”? That is not a question, but rhetorical 'answer', in fact the mother of all answers. The question is the answer itslef, for what am "I" but just IS. Of course, that is, in my opinion of course, I really and actually know nothing……….. at all.

Hey! That reminds me….


I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,

From up and down, and still somehow.

It’s clouds illusion… I……… recall,

I really don’t know clouds… at…….. all…


I think it was Neil Diamond that I heard quite a few years ago, so the words may not be exactly correct. I don’t remember how that song starts.

sapius:

You see, it has to necessarily be a step-by-step understanding, and a step-by-step realization, that results in a cumulative Realization, as long as one makes the effort to keep each and every little realizations in mind, without forgetting any even for a moment.

Now, about the ‘wiping out’ of the previously known. The next logical question should be, how can on ‘wipe out’ the previously known?

Well, realisation doesn't occur thru' knowledge per se, thru' the accumulation of 'things to be known'...like a computer storing data in the filing system..

It shows up in the area of the epistomology of knowledge:

Knowledge is understood as consisting of models that allow the adaptation of a cybernetic system to its environment, by anticipation of possible perturbations. Models function as recursive generators of predictions about the world and the self. A model is necessarily simpler than the environment it represents, and this enables it to run faster than, i.e. anticipate, the processes in the environment. This allows the system to compensate perturbations before they have had the opportunity to damage the system.

Models are not static reflections of the environment, but dynamic constructions achieved through trial-and-error by the individual, the species and/or the society. What models represent is not the structure of the environment but its action, insofar as it has an influence on the system. They are both subjective, in the sense of being constructed by the subject for its own purposes, and objective, in the sense of being naturally selected by the environment: models which do not generate adequate predictions are likely to be later eliminated. Thus, the development of knowledge can best be understood as an evolutionary process characterized by variation mechanisms and selection criteria.

There is no "absolutely true" model of reality (yet): there are many different models, any of which may be adequate for solving particular problems, but no model is capable to solve all problems. The most efficient way to choose or to construct a model which is adequate for the given problem is by reasoning on a metacognitive level, where a class of possible models can be analysed and compared. This requires a metasystem transition with respect to the variety of individual models. Principia Cybernetica.

What we do is we pick up versions of truth parlayed by Meaning Makers...
These versions act like 'slides' in our brain and we 'project' them out onto the Void...and try to make the Void fit the 'picture' the slide is producing...

You can pick up the Buddha Slide, the Jung Slide, the Nietsche Slide...there's a Billion Slides but none of them describe Ultimate Reality and of course are complete Fiction, like Santa Claus but nevertheless are interesting and give us hope...

...they couldn't get Math to work properly 'til somebody conceptualised Zero...then it all hung together...there's nothing and then there's something..

Enlightenment is a Realisation where the conceptualisation of Nothing is arrived at..

UG can say it's in the 'Death of Knowledge'...and he can say 'I have Nothing to Say'....as do the Taoists...but because we are chatterboxes and Ego Trippers we can't shut up for long and that's OK...

It's in the Realisation of emptiness that the Naked Presence of the True Self slams in...that Will to Survive and put together Meaning in order to persist...it's got massive grunt...
When the first fish scrambled up on to land it was only ever a possibility...to survive, persist...this 'chain of causation', 'Buddha Nature'...massive grunt...

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless...

And..

It's empty and marvellous.

frank

Frank,

Well, realization doesn't occur thru' knowledge per se, thru' the accumulation of 'things to be known'...like a computer storing data in the filing system..

It shows up in the area of the epistemology of knowledge:

May be, but your explanation about ‘knowledge’ is a bit too academic for me, and I think in simple terms due to my own incapability’s.

What I actually meant was one has to necessarily keep two seemingly contradictory conclusions, seen and arrived at from two different perspectives, and keep it on the desk-top, rather than store it away. So as to have it in front of his eyes at all times.

Enlightenment is a Realization where the conceptualization of Nothing is arrived at.

(Good example for what I just said)

Firstly you do mean something when saying that, and secondly, yes, that is correct, but when saying this, meaningfully of course, one cannot forget even for a moment that that too is a concept itself, and dose not necessarily hold any inherent meaning. Including what I have just “said”. Hence, there is actually nothing being “said”, and yet I hear. Hence in such a state, one could actually only react to causality, since even words are nothing but caused conditions to which one reacts. A=A. A difficult state to explain, hence, what can I say further… and hence, “I” have nothing to say. The stress is on the “I”, if you know what I mean. For that is not actually there at all. It has been long lost in a sea of infinite causality, and that is all that IT sees.

That’s what I mean when I say that these two contradictory conclusions have to necessarily arise together and merge into one, as Truth, and yet remain separate in their separateness, for if they actually merged, as in ONE with the Tao, or whatever for that matter, it would be impossible for one to remain aware of anything at all, including its causal nature.

UG can say it's in the 'Death of Knowledge'...and he can say 'I have Nothing to Say'....as do the Taoists...but because we are chatterboxes and Ego Trippers we can't shut up for long and that's OK...

May be, but the question is that that the one who Really says, “I have nothing to say”, is not aware of it as chatter, for he is surely saying “I have nothing to say”, but what he is aware of is REACTION, what you call Activity, nothing more! There is absolutely nothing left except activity that one is aware of, nothing else. All the meaning-making is dead so to speak. Not even a meaning in and of Reaction.

So one could ask that then how the hell does he operate? To which he reacts, not "says", Hey! don't you already know? Causality! Which is right under your nose.

How much more plainly can I expain? It is all in the eye of the beholder, ultimately.

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless...

And..

It's empty and marvellous.

All that I’m saying is, that those two sentences above are but one in essence, and that - “because we are chatterboxes and Ego Trippers we can't shut up for long and that's OK...” No, that’s not just OK, but A OK, it cannot absolutely be otherwise, don’t you see? It IS causality, it IS Reality, and ABSOLUTELY ALL is just IS. Including the meaning-making.

I think this should come to you as a shock, becasue I'm including the "meaning-making" too, but that is the truth.

It's in the Realisation of emptiness that the Naked Presence of the True Self slams in...that Will to Survive and put together Meaning in order to persist...it's got massive grunt...
When the first fish scrambled up on to land it was only ever a possibility...to survive, persist...this 'chain of causation', 'Buddha Nature'...massive grunt...

Do you mean something when you say… massive grunt… if so, what is it? Can you please explain? ;)

The crux of the matter lies in there. So think before you speak.

Do I hear “ I have noting to say”?

what happened to MY bliss?

sapius:

What I actually meant was one has to necessarily keep two seemingly contradictory conclusions, seen and arrived at from two different perspectives, and keep it on the desk-top, rather than store it away. So as to have it in front of his eyes at all times.

OK, we've got a Situation.

On the Subject of passthrough.

You are saying Yes to PT and Sue is saying No to PT.

You both pull in the 'authority' of QRS to 'justify' your Positions.

What's happening?

Is it not Hilarious?....in a Sense...when the dust settles?

frank

Come on Sapius.

In a Situation.
There's 3 Options.
Fight.
Flight.
Face up.

You've stuck the boots into Sue. (fight)
Threatened to leave your 'home of 10 years'. (flight)

Now it's Face Up time.

You already know Sue has the correct position...the position of Genius.

You know Suffering is optional...that it is born largely from wrong thinking or a Lie...

PT's kind of Suffering is an effect of a Lie she is Living...she's not Facing the Truth....

Tell PT that...the ball is then in her court...where it should be.

frank

unwise wrote:what happened to MY bliss?

Hahahahah........

I'm sorry. You were saying..........?

Is it not Hilarious?....in a Sense...when the dust settles?

Hahahahahah……..

Yes Frank, it is…. But why when the dust settles? Is it any different NOW? Heheheh……

You've stuck the boots into Sue. (fight)

Hahahah… no, not at all. I don’t really know what a fight is, nor any Sue so to speak.

Threatened to leave your 'home of 10 years'. (flight)

Ah! Now that's a different matter, but it is not a threat in any way, nor is it a “flight” as such, especially for the reasons that you seem to indicate.

After all, I’m still a visitor, a guest, in a home that is not really mine.

I’m a slave to my own values, just as anybody else, and that tells me that it is impolite to remain a guest in a place where the host has disappeared for more than a reasonable time, without any adequate explanations, that too when there are more than one.

Hence I would say, hmmm……..say 48 hours.

Now that is a threat! That is, if one wants to consider it as such, on the other hand, threats are generally empty, so one could consider it an inquiry.

In any case, it all depends on those hopelessly predetermined causal conditions, so no worries, actually. :D



BTW...

PT's kind of Suffering is an effect of a Lie she is Living...she's not Facing the Truth....

Tell PT that...the ball is then in her court...where it should be.

Does she have a ear or a court to begin with? Most probably it will land on her face, resulting in a broken nose. A mind can be as hard as a rock, or as delicate as a flower, and all the degrees in-between.

Oh, it's just these co-dependant games that get played out here
from time to time...

'You're a Sissy and I'm not'....

'If Daddy (authority figure/QRS) don't come back in 48 hours, I'm outta here'...

I know what Daddy (authority figure/QRS) really means and you don't'....

Deconstruct the bullshit Sapius.

There isn't really Truth....like it's a Big Secret in a little Red Box with a Blue Ribbon.

There's just a tangle of lies/mental constructs...that when unravelled...reveal Nothing at all.

hahahahaha.

It's Hilarious.

Post Modernism/Deconstructionism simply had to happen eventually...a Logical Progression...it just makes Sense...

What Next?

frank

frank wrote:Yeah, that's the picture I have...and that relief from Suffering is achieved by spotting the flawed interpretation....I look for the Aha moment where the whole

That's a neat package..it looks good.
What you are saying is you couldn't get a Show on the Road without duality or conflict...that nothing could happen...
that recognition plus differentiation produces action...that the whole thing is set up for Activity to occur...a kind of Game.

The Law of Identity and Differentiation. A=A.

Also, things happen regardless. It is not about changing anything.

That conception of Oneness is a position in the Game that breaks the Code and delivers a Still Mind while the Game and the Players continue to swirl about oneself...

There is no code. Only the code you create. A still mind is not delivered. It was always underneath the rubble.

It's hilarious because Suffering is optional depending on what you are recognising and differentiating and acting upon...

frank

Well done.

frank wrote:Oh, it's just these co-dependant games that get played out here
from time to time...

'You're a Sissy and I'm not'....

'If Daddy (authority figure/QRS) don't come back in 48 hours, I'm outta here'...

I know what Daddy (authority figure/QRS) really means and you don't'....

Deconstruct the bullshit Sapius.

There isn't really Truth....like it's a Big Secret in a little Red Box with a Blue Ribbon.

There's just a tangle of lies/mental constructs...that when unravelled...reveal Nothing at all.

hahahahaha.

It's Hilarious.

Post Modernism/Deconstructionism simply had to happen eventually...a Logical Progression...it just makes Sense...

What Next?

frank

Alright….. I guess I have to go back to my rhetorical questioning mode… :D

There isn't really Truth....

Is THAT the Truth?

It's Hilarious.

Are you sure of that? Do you Really Mean it? Or is THAT a meaningless babbling?

What Next?

Next is to Realize that After sinking in the understanding of ‘that it is empty and meaningless’, and what one holds or understands the meaning of Exactly just that, is Not Created by the one, “I”, at all.. If you think that is so, you are absolutely deluded according to me. Prove it that it is “I” or “you” who is doing the meaning-making.

How can you exclude just THAT from Reality that includes every and all things that there is? And hold “I” responsible for the meaning-making? Hence illusory? Reality, that is ALL that there IS, is not a ONE unit of some kind, and plays no tricks actually, and the division we experience is the Truth, including the thought that "something" underlies this divison to make it some sort of "one". Hence no inherent agenda in and of Existence as in achieving any goal or driven by some inherent “purpose”, it’s just IS, but not absolutely meaningless at the same time, for the meaning-ness it creates in us, is Reality too. And there is no IT that creates, it is just Activity! And that is Reality! We are chasing a verb, and that chasing too is Activity, Reality. Stop chasing, and you have got it, and that is absolutely possible, and THAT is Reality too, not that THAT IS Reality, and the rest is some sort of "Real Illusion".

From where does the meaning-making pop up without any connection to all that there is? (Reality. Activity.)

If you want to further know how inherent "meanings" are in and of Existence, and want to understand it in a clearer manner, ask Diebert, with whom I have had a devil’s advocate type of a discussion arguing against it. He understands it perfectly! And could possible make others understand in a more academic fashion.

It's hilarious, isn’t it? But think about it meaningfully, otherwise, it isn’t hilarious at all. :D

It's hilarious because Suffering is optional depending on what you are recognizing and differentiating and acting upon...

frank

Tharpa: Well done.

So, Tharan, ultimately, like Frank, you do know that it is YOU, or I, who have the choice. Right? Good.

sapius:

From where does the meaning-making pop up without any connection to all that there is? (Reality. Activity.)

The Tao is the Organ Grinder.
You're just the Monkey.

Lao Tzu might have said learn to 'sing in tune'....or become a smart monkey...

sapius:

A mind can be as hard as a rock, or as delicate as a flower, and all the degrees in-between.

Needy chicks drop their scent all over the place and the passions of the boys are set aflame...
It's Activity.

Tharpa:

There is no code. Only the code you create. A still mind is not delivered. It was always underneath the rubble.

That looks more exact...well done.

frank

Frank,

The Tao is the Organ Grinder.
You're just the Monkey.

Back to “meaning-making” are we? Aren’t both those things Reality? The reality of meaning-making? That you are doing in both of those sentences?

Rise above that. Look at it from the “out-side”. And understand the Reality of meaning-making, which is full of all meanings.

Needy chicks drop their scent all over the place and the passions of the boys are set aflame...
It's Activity.

I see. And how is it not otherwise, which ever otherwise that it may be? Can one get rid of “activity”? So how “illusory” is Activity actually? THINK! My friend.

(Tharan and Tharpa are two different minds. At times I make that mistake too, if not attentive.)

Tharan: There is no code. Only the code you create. A still mind is not delivered. It was always underneath the rubble.

Tharan: That looks more exact...well done.

Good. So now I know that you understand and accept it’s meaning and agree. A Sangha is created.

So there Really is some-un-thing, unexplainable, “underneath” the “rubble”, and one has to grasp or Realize THAT, which is a “STILL MIND" so to speak, but THAT is Reality, and Activity is illusory. Right?

I cannot understand what one means by a 'Still Mind', when I know that nothing can exist except in and of Activity. Without Activity, the thought of a 'still mind' would not exist at all. How "STILL" do you, or Tharan you, think Existance is?