GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:So suffering is the result of being "immersed in the experience at hand" which leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are permanent, even though one is experiencing phenomena as impermanent, and it follows from this that the solution to suffering and the truth of emptiness is to realise that what you see isn’t there? Tell me, what is it that such a one sees?

Suffering is the result of attachment (clinging) caused by ignorance (cue Diebert).
As previously stated by yours truly, erroneously experiencing phenomena as permanent is the ignorance.

Leyla, immersion/attachment. Yes suffering is the result of attachment.
Attachment leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are lasting or permanent, yes.
Even though all formations are impermanent, yes.

One sees that the there are formations, sights, sounds, thoughts, etc.
That's the end of it. One doesn't hold to any other delusions about how these come about, or that they are interpreted by the body. (Which is nothing but a reference to some sights, sounds, thoughts,etc, appearances)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: What are appearances for you? I guess this is all about assigning actuality, being or even "world" to something, the moment consciousness "lands" on anything. Even assigning "formlessness" is still a being and a doing. There's then still the actuality of "no actual form".

And what do you do exactly when saying "this or that exists". What do you add?

As I suggested above, appearances are sights/sounds/feelings/thoughts/imaginations,etc.

But yeah I agree these designations are meaningless, I think the whole point of being free of delusions about ultimate reality, and being free of conceptual clinging, is to recognize ultimate reality is exactly what is directly experienced. Not much more to say about it. These understandings are only beneficial in the sense that one becomes unaffected and liberated from suffering and death(as an end).

So,ultimately reality (emptiness) is a bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc, with no form that you are not seeing being there and no interpretations of this bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc?

[bump] For Diebert:

Leyla Shen wrote:So suffering is the result of being "immersed in the experience at hand" which leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are permanent, even though one is experiencing phenomena as impermanent, and it follows from this that the solution to suffering and the truth of emptiness is to realise that what you see isn’t there? Tell me, what is it that such a one sees?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Reading Seeker's post just now and I agree with it.

Excellent. I expect you'll have no trouble answering my last question, then!

Leyla Shen wrote:So,ultimately reality (emptiness) is a bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc,

Yes that's what we call reality, what we experience.

Leyla Shen wrote:with no form that you are not seeing being there and no interpretations of this bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc?

The interpretations that you are referring to(or any meaning experienced) are appearances themselves. They exist only as momentarily appearing thoughts/concepts/feelings, etc.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

The water heater on my travel trailer.

such is the way of it.

what's broken?

you won't be able to prove brokenness.

Something to do with the safety feature of a pressure release valve. It prematurely blows when the temperature begins to rise. Better than pressure building to a level intolerable to the form and causing an explosion.

I have yet to really dig into it, as I’m occupied with other maintenance to get the apartment-on-wheels ship shape for another season of family fun.

Would you say that brokenness is defined by form?

Would you say that brokenness is defined by form?

It depends how the world occurs for you.
one who arrives at suchness.
not a hair on a head out of place anywhere, anytime.
astonishing.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Would you say that brokenness is defined by form?

It depends how the world occurs for you.
one who arrives at suchness.
not a hair on a head out of place anywhere, anytime.
astonishing.

Well, on a tangential note, something that lovers of trees have probably long ago realized via reflection and contemplation of awareness upon their object of attention (a bonus if that reflection is stripped of conceptual delusion), is the simple observation of, where did all that wood come from?

A religious tree lover just might say that organizing all that wood, from random elements to interconnected elements, shaping form according to a microscopic code, in the context of an entropic universe in which chaos follows order, denotes an anomaly to entropy that could be defined as an intelligence for effortless creation beyond that exhibited by any man’s capacity, and thus divine.

In the context of religion, which after all is the thread topic, this tree-lover’s perception would actually come across as more logical than asserting, “religion is stoopid.”

I think it is of vital importance and its goals or plans or designs are to answer presently unanswered questions such as are we alone, is this a created virtual reality or is this something else.

I believe that religion is designed to show future civilizations or our existing civilizations that we are not alone and we were created. If this is true and a higher power has the ability to create us and the reality we are living in then we are in a sense immortals as well if we can be created or recreated at will. I feel that religion and biblical texts can be used to prove that this is in fact true or untrue and on the other hand whether evolution is true or false and or a combination of both is possible as well. It also can be used to determine whether fate is true or false or a combination of fate and non determinism is possible as well.

Leyla Shen wrote:So suffering is the result of being "immersed in the experience at hand" which leads to the erroneous belief that phenomena are permanent, even though one is experiencing phenomena as impermanent, and it follows from this that the solution to suffering and the truth of emptiness is to realise that what you see isn’t there? Tell me, what is it that such a one sees?

Hey, I thought that I was the one asking questions here :-) Anyway, to claim experiencing this or that I don't find that interesting. The challenge is here how to communicate and express the various insights on the topic. These insights and the ability to see into the subject go hand in hand but also can facilitate one another. Especially how to describe this "immersion" as well as any result with regards to experiencing life. With Seeker I started with some Buddhist phrasings as canvas to have this conversation on. For example:

• And what does he discern as it has come to be? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling ... perception ... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness - Saṃyutta Nikāya 22:5

What you see isn't just "there" because it would be more truthfully to see with full awareness that "this has come to be" and "this is the origination" and "this is the cessation". But there's still some work to do to get this better in focus with language that means something to all the participants.

Hey guys.

dependent arising can't be refuted.
suchness can't be refuted.

to refute either is to throw reason out.

all the bases are covered and no loopholes remain.
they are not so much in order to dispel an illusion, rather tools to correct an error.

Your pictures are indeed lovely, Diebert. But they are not much use to someone afraid of death.

More later.

Cahoot wrote: is the simple observation of, where did all that wood come from?

Yeah, the fact is not a single person conceptually understands these processes or the topics they think they know about.
The very water they drink can be honestly described as nothing but a complete mystery to them.

Reality and appearances are of the sort 'miracle'. Unknown, nothing to know. No 'God' did it. No one did.

If it's divine then you're divine along with it, but you don't feel too godly or creative do ya?

The truth is simply that, this is what you are.
To try and grasp how it came about by conceptually thinking about it, is meaningless. (Using transient appearances won't get you anywhere in understanding an answer to the imagined question 'how' for these transient appearances)

Yeah, the fact is not a single person conceptually understands these processes or the topics they think they know about.

looks like an infinite regress of justifiers opening up here.

SN-w wrote:

But yeah I agree these designations are meaningless, I think the whole point of being free of delusions about ultimate reality, and being free of conceptual clinging, is to recognize ultimate reality is exactly what is directly experienced. Not much more to say about it.

Indeed. Having said absolutely nothing meaningful about it in the first place, since all that is experienced is necessarily and by definition “experienced directly”.

What is an indirect experience, and why did you delete your reply to my following question? Could it be, perhaps, that for as much as you deny it, you experience the self as inherently existing? A rhetorical question, really...

So, ultimately reality (emptiness) is a bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc, with no form that you are not seeing being there and no interpretations of this bunch of sights, sounds, forms, etc?

Men of the Infinite (courtesy of the mind and voice of Dan Rowden from The Nature of Existence videos, and minimally paraphrased by the mind and typing of me):

Evolutionists fear for their souls (“inherently existing selves”) possibly because they understand (consciousness of the fact) that evolution doesn’t care for what is true, what is sane, but only for what replicates and survives.

And:

[...] it is the delusion of an inherently existing self that is the cause of all suffering, angst, false emotions, and forms of madness like religion. It also has the potential to be the cause of our ultimate demise.

Implicit in these propositions is that the false idea of an uncaused self is any notion which provides for and is sustained upon the conception of an uncaused self. So, if you are going to assert that there are things which can be observed (sensory or otherwise) without an observer as ultimately real, you are engaging the delusion of permanence since such a “reality” necessarily arises interdependently as the observation of a conscious observer. And yet, what does he see?

So, this belief in an inherent self becomes the absolute assertion of no existing self—that there can be observations without conscious observers (!?). Same shit posing as a non-belief in an inherently existing self. And, of course, such people say, believe and do tremendously stupid and dangerous things...

seeker,

you sound like a news anchor,
some guy breathlessly announcing the news.

'smash on '49 details unavailable'.

Thanks Dennis, you sound like a narrator

Leyla Shen wrote:why did you delete your reply to my following question?

I didn't, everything I've written is still there.

Leyla Shen wrote: So, if you are going to assert that there are things which can be observed (sensory or otherwise) without an observer as ultimately real, you are engaging the delusion of permanence since such a “reality” necessarily arises interdependently as the observation of a conscious observer. And yet, what does he see?

There is no observer, experiencer, actor, or doer. If you think otherwise, try and point one out.
Each time there will only be references to appearances which exist without any individual 'witness'.

I didn't assert there was an 'uncaused self', I think I did the opposite.
For impermanent formations (which is all of them), 'not me, this am I not' holds true.

There is an experience of non-attachment, but where is the being or person there experiencing it?
There is the arising of various formations such as sight, but where is the observer there observing?

"Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it.
The Path exists, but no traveler can be seen.”

SNw wrote:

I didn't, everything I've written is still there.

Right you are. God didn't scroll high enough on the page for me, but he doesn't think you deserve an apology or merit any further serious discussion about the nature of reality.

You believe in a God? :\

Sure, why not! I’m a born again Godian. Since I can make an appearance without existing, then certainly he can exist without making an appearance!

This "I" you refer to is a reference to appearances, silly. So I'm not sure why you think they don't exist.

Leyla Shen wrote:SNw wrote:

You've a ways to go.

Trust me, the truth has it that I ain't going anywhere you are.

seeker,

I didn't, everything I've written is still there

just in case there's an observer observing I assume.

Dennis Mahar wrote:observer

Is there experience, yes.

Is there an experience'r', where? what does that even mean?

The basis of this argument is dependent upon a meaningless word that seems to refer to a thing or being.
A little formless man sitting inside the head perhaps?
If not, point toward what you mean then.

Maybe if you ignore that you've made an unfounded assertion and reference causes/conditions that will clear up what you mean?