GENIUS FORUMS

This is brilliance!

How do I know if this is what I think it is, or whether I'm going insane (or not). When I'm in it, so to speak, I'm sure I'm more saner then ever. But when I'm going out, I feel the same way. It seems that it doesn't matter whether I'm in or out, what matters is that I'm not in when I'm out or that when I'm not out, I'm in. Keep in mind that in and out are just what they are and when I'm in I have no knowledge of the other side of it, that's to say, I don't have knowledge of the other side in the same sense that I have knowledge of this side...For more clarification as to what I may mean:

When you're happy, you're not experiencing depression. You know what it is, yet you do not know at the time what it truly is. It doesn't exist.

It's all a creation (the happiness, the depression, the in and the outs etc). However, it is real at the instance of the experience, without the thought of what may be going on. Such that when experiencing pure bliss, you are experiencing what the term represents, yet you're not upon recognition of what it is...It's truly amazing, yet I know I haven't grasped what I'm trying to grasp, probably because of the very act of trying...

Keep up the good work.

[Now tell me if I have a vague understanding or not.]~Does it change with this question?

It's amazing. I love you.

[Edit: Yes Unidan, it's called different perspectives. You either understand or you don't, even David Quinn gets tired of constantly explaining himself - Of course, that's not to imply that I understand exactly what he means. I've got a long road ahead of me towards that...]

Sounds a little fishy to me.

Why don't you go outside and watch the stars a bit, or maybe take in a good movie. You know, chop some wood and carry some water. Perhaps even write a post, ideally not another one about magical ultimate bliss and the like. That's all monkey-minded stuff - a lot of grandiose chattering and inflating of concepts. It leads in the wrong direction.

Zen is 3 pounds of flax, enlightenment is buns, and Buddha is a wiping-stick.

...

Unidian wrote:Things are just things. What else would they be?

To understand this, it might help to make a list of all the the things you think that "things" really are. It could potentially be a pretty long list of thoughts, ideas, and concepts, such as "things are dependently-constructed mental categories representing conventionally-drawn arbitrary distinctions within a transcendentally undivided whole," or whatever else. For the record, that example I used is about the best conceptual thinking can do. But try it yourself, and have a look at the whole list. Maybe "things are entities which exist" or something like it will be on there.

Now, toss the whole list. Things are not any of that. Still thinking about what things might really be? Make another list of thoughts and concepts.

None of that, either.

Done yet?

The point of all this is that reality, "things" included, is trans-conceptual. It simply is what it is. Or, as the Diamond Sutra put it, "Truly I tell you, Subhuti, there is no named thing which is not merely a name."

In this light, properly realized, the concepts of "existence" and "non-existence" simply do not arise.

Ooooh so close! But if you think that "things are dependently-constructed mental categories representing conventionally-drawn arbitrary distinctions within a transcendentally undivided whole", then that's truly what things are! Because things are exactly what they are, and thinking and believing whatever you think and believe is also what is.

Mountains, not mountains, mountains again. I'm getting the distinct impression that you're stuck in the last little bit of "not mountains."

Ooooh but hang on, why am I trying to negate and criticize what you said, isn't believing in "not mountains" also what is?

Ahhhggg but isn't my negating and criticizing someone who believes in "not mountains" also what is!!!????

What isn't "what is"?

David Quinn wrote:At best, I see John's post as material for rank beginners. At worse, as yet another recycling of populist material that has already been cliched to death.-

After examining all of the various 'philosophies' it seems advisable to embrace one and to apply it. The notion of the 'uncarved block' is, in fact, a return to a 'new beginning'..... to extract one's self from the labyrinth of words and to translate one's embraced philosophy into dynamic transformation. In other words, to take it on a 'test drive' to see if it produces a desired result. Otherwise one can remain as an 'armchair' tourist perpetually engaged in an endless debate.
The notion that 'things do not exist' is, on its face, ridiculous. However, embracing the notion that things do not exist is an effective fiction for navigating the inner realms and for providing a release from the labyrinth of materiality.
'Philosophies' are just 'another thing' (albeit non material).

It is possible that all reality is just a thought to ourself. Although improbable. Through observation we certify somethings existance whether it be imaginary or physical.

ChaoticMelody wrote:It is possible that all reality is just a thought to ourself. Although improbable. Through observation we certify somethings existance whether it be imaginary or physical.

I am reminded of the person awakening from sleep who dreamed that she was a butterfly... later she could not recall if she was a human dreaming of being a butterfly or, presently, a butterfly dreaming that she was human...

JohnChasWebb wrote:

David Quinn wrote:At best, I see John's post as material for rank beginners. At worse, as yet another recycling of populist material that has already been cliched to death.-

After examining all of the various 'philosophies' it seems advisable to embrace one and to apply it. The notion of the 'uncarved block' is, in fact, a return to a 'new beginning'..... to extract one's self from the labyrinth of words and to translate one's embraced philosophy into dynamic transformation. In other words, to take it on a 'test drive' to see if it produces a desired result. Otherwise one can remain as an 'armchair' tourist perpetually engaged in an endless debate.
The notion that 'things do not exist' is, on its face, ridiculous. However, embracing the notion that things do not exist is an effective fiction for navigating the inner realms and for providing a release from the labyrinth of materiality.
'Philosophies' are just 'another thing' (albeit non material).

Yes, all good points. I like this kind of focus in your writing much better.

-

ChaoticMelody wrote:It is possible that all reality is just a thought to ourself. Although improbable. Through observation we certify somethings existance whether it be imaginary or physical.

It doesn't really matter if what we experience is imaginary or not. The experiences are still direct manifestations of Reality itself, the ALL. Because of this, we can by-pass the whole imaginary issue and begin to experience Reality in a deeper, more direct way.

-

skipair wrote:So far it is my understanding that: Things exist in the sense that the mind cannot help but to cut up the world into practical chunks, such as the bed I'm sitting on, the chair I'm looking at, the mountain I'm imagining, the sound of my keyboard, etc. What I think I'm supposed to be able to do is to see the illusory nature of all these things, and that the self, or anything that seems to inherently exist, is actually false.

Without wishing to draw attention from David's contributions, i add;

Things happen in sequence. Using skipair's example, one moment a bed may occur, the next moment the thought "I am sitting on the bed" may occur, after that a chair may occur, then an imaginary mountain may occur. In the moment that each of these occur, there is no other thing(s).

Certainly one wouldn't want to "draw attention" from David's inspired scriptures by interjecting their own feeble scribblings into the midst.

Hehe, some of you guys are a trip. :)

Unidian wrote:Certainly one wouldn't want to "draw attention" from David's inspired scriptures by interjecting their own feeble scribblings into the midst. Hehe, some of you guys are a trip. :)

Shame you've crashed so early in the piece Unidian.

David Quinn wrote:Yes, all good points. I like this kind of focus in your writing much better.

He was speaking to skipair earlier. You can't speak to everyone as if they're the same person.

SEX SEX SEX

SELF-SUFFICIENT FARMING, SELF-SUFFICIENT FARMING, SELF-SUFFICIENT FARMING

WOMEN HAVE PUNY BRAINS, WOMEN HAVE PUNY BRAINS, WOMEN HAVE PUNY BRAINS

9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY, 9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY, 9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY

(Just drawing attention away from David's and Rhett's posts. I know my audience.)

nitty-gritty wrote:[Now tell me if I have a vague understanding or not.]~Does it change with this question?

[You do.]~You're "out" when you ask this question, because you already know!

9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY, 9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY, 9/11 WAS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY

LOL JEWS DID WTC

Does it explain anything if I were to tell you that I'm a virgin...*blush*

I'm saving myself for "The One".

LOL (...Though, It is a little depressing...)

You're saving yourself for Keanu Reeves?

Wow. :p

LOL!:D

Unidian wrote:You're saving yourself for Keanu Reeves?

Wow. :p

Don't you mean "woah"?

David wrote:

But really, the thing that we imagine is being disconnected from the body, or embracing the world as a whole, is an illusion as well, and not really "ours" to begin with. It is something lent to us by Nature. Everything that we imagine to be our self is really just a creation of Nature's in the moment. It is a gift of Nature, one that can be taken away again at a moment's notice!

Nature, the great Indian Giver.

So we should really hate nature, as we do. There should be no sense of being one with nature, but of being one against nature. Although everything we like or dislike about nature is within ourselves, our own nature has been caused by nature, and is thus is not really "within" ourselves. What is ourselves is simply the form of ourselves, manifested mentally by one's ego - there is no illusion or delusion about this.

All life acts against nature, because all form acts against other forms. Reason is the tool life uses to act against nature.
We should not have any goals for oneness with nature, but for separatedness from it. The more separated from nature the more godly we become.

The enlightened therefore should be those who are most capable of working against "the rest of natures form", and thus at the level of "the form that is the entire species", should include all those who use reason to create something that works against nature - namely inventors, scientists, mathematicians. At an individual level, it can include "some" philosophers of reality and logic, as those are whom provide the information for individuals to "utilise reason against nature". For example the QRS wish people to use reason against the existing nature of themselves - through reason they want people to oppose their ego's, and in doing so they are indirectly opposing nature - they are opposing what the species has evolved to be its nature.

Note however, that it is the ego that opposes nature, regardless of whether reason is used or not. It is the ego that is the difference between life and not-life, even in lower life forms to humans. Reason just makes one's ego, one's hatred against nature, into a sharper tool.

In essence the ego is all you are, in that it is the ego that determines what enters your consciousness. The ego is the master control program in relation to what data streams from your subconscious brain are "made conscious".

I just thought of a great pseudonym: Masterdebater!

I just thought of a great pseudonym: Masterdebater!

Regardless of your age, Nitty-G, you are too young and green to be posting here.

Regardless of your age, Nitty-G, you are too young and green to be posting here.

Naive?~Explain yourself please. If not, I only see one possibility: YOU'RE WRONG!!!

Jamesh wrote:So we should really hate nature, as we do. There should be no sense of being one with nature, but of being one against nature. Although everything we like or dislike about nature is within ourselves, our own nature has been caused by nature, and is thus is not really "within" ourselves. What is ourselves is simply the form of ourselves, manifested mentally by one's ego - there is no illusion or delusion about this.

Everything we dislike about nature, and about our own natures, is actually our own doing. We've had "free will" to choose disharmony through the intellect, and nature (as in the Earth) only reflects it. It's not totally discordant, of course, collectively and in nature. Thankfully, it's not absolutely free will.