GENIUS FORUMS

Buddha mind is a condition.
Isn't God.
Still experiences 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'.
Just knows the dependent arising of such.

In the driver's seat.

a seemingly interminable chain of earlier/similars (karma/cause-effect) that was in the driver's seat got blown off for the sake of liberation.


Don't put Buddha mind out of reach of ordinary folk.

What is real is inherently peaceful and bliss is a colour of that.

Dennis Mahar wrote:a seemingly interminable chain of earlier/similars (karma/cause-effect) that was in the driver's seat got blown off for the sake of liberation.

Translation - forget about everything you were or did before you decided to join our church.

Bliss.

Buddha says the same thing.
This ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises,
dependent arising.

no big deal.

Use the analogy of seeing 2 empty glasses in front of you.
The first perception is that the spaces inside the glasses are different.
If you were to break the glasses there's a possibility of realising the spaces inside them were non-dual.

Trick of consciousness.
conventionally true and ultimately true.
emptiness is the union of the 2.

Diebert:

What I meant with "passionate" was explained in the post: repetitive attempts to psychoanalyze, trick, humor or supply "koans" as self-course instead as spicy side-dish.

But movingalways did no such thing. What she did was run and hide high up your overbearing womb for protection!

So, of course my dear, I’m quite happy here to watch you get hoisted on your own petard in your dull attempt to overthrow Xenu:

Still the scientologist, always those rules, the subtextual control over the conversation.... :)

~

There is a big difference between wisdom, and the oh-so esoteric "speaking in tongues" you're fond of, though; one is conscious and the other, being "divinely inspired", gushes over everything like the contents of an amniotic sack. It's awfully painful to watch!

Buddha mind is a condition.
Isn't God.
Still experiences 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'.
Just knows the dependent arising of such.

In the driver's seat.

a seemingly interminable chain of earlier/similars (karma/cause-effect) that was in the driver's seat got blown off for the sake of liberation.

Don't put Buddha mind out of reach of ordinary folk.

What is real is inherently peaceful and bliss is a colour of that.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Buddha says the same thing.
This ceases, that ceases
this arises, that arises,
dependent arising.

no big deal.

-
Dennis, I could provide suttas from the Pali Canon that would shine a light on the darkness of your gross misunderstandings of the Buddha's teachings, but experience tells me that to do so would only serve to increase my fool quotient.

You seem content to continue paraphrasing the Buddha (and others) avoiding totally any usage of actual scriptures or doctrine to support your 'instant wisdom claims.' From my perspective, to paraphrase someone to rape their truth.

Leyla to Diebert: But movingalways did no such thing. What she did was run and hide high up your overbearing womb for protection!

If you want the reason why I responded to Diebert as I did with my thank yous and hugs, I would appreciate it if you would ask me directly. Speculation about someone's motives is spiritual gossip, clearly a contradiction in terms.

My posts have had nothing to do with your hugging Diebert.

If you can't remember where it all started, I suggest you go back and look over it.

And I think it would be an act of integrity too if you would be consistent, and reprimand Diebert for speaking on your behalf, no?

Leyla Shen wrote:My posts have had nothing to do with your hugging Diebert.

If you can't remember where it all started, I suggest you go back and look over it.

I see no value in going back to review "Diebert and Pam." My point to you was please, do not speculate about my reasons for saying this or that to anyone on this board.

And I think it would be an act of integrity too if you would be consistent, and reprimand Diebert for speaking on your behalf, no?

If you are referring to:

Leyla Shen wrote to movingalways:
Because I want to understand what you mean by the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning, when it comes to fruitful communication about ultimate reality

It's the philosophical position and experience that certain things about reality will always found to be true, like its relativity. But the path of such understanding leads through various other universals, like revisiting suffering. It's being demonstrated again and again that meaningful communication quickly deteriorates when "passionate" speech is involved, like repetitive attempts to psychoanalyze, trick, humor or supply "koans" as main self-course instead as spicy side-dish. don't consider the responding to someone else's

I agree that it might have better served the integrity of the conversation if Diebert had waited until I responded to your statement to me before he offered his thoughts on reason vs. passion, but neither you or I know his reasons for posting when he did. Only Diebert knows Diebert's reasons. As does only Leyla know Leyla's reasons.

suttas, doctrines, scriptures are merely pale imitations Pam.
Conceptualising mind is always/already a step or two or six away from Buddha mind.That doesn't mean reasoning stops. It just means a lot of thought is thoughtless and harmful.

Direct knowledge of emptiness is pure awareness, awareness void of concepts

That's it!
If you truly got that there would have been an explosion of bliss.
'fess up.

Lol

Well, now I can say without a doubt that this form of enlightenment, as demonstrated by its present and active enlightened membership, is clearly no form of enlightenment I am capable of attaining.

Consequently, I'll be off to unreservedly embrace my unenlightened decadence.

Cyber hugs to all, and may your karma be with you!

xxxx

Dennis Mahar wrote:Buddha says the same thing.
This ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises,
dependent arising.

Really? Well, you know, I think he may have been right, because just the other day I heard my 17 year old niece say that on twitter. To paraphrase from memory: "thakur thakbe kotokhhon, thakur jabe bisorjon."

conventionally true and ultimately true.
emptiness is the union of the 2.

There is no union. If there were, then to what category of truth does the truth that the two categories of truths become united in emptiness belong?

Leyla Shen wrote:Well, now I can say without a doubt that this form of enlightenment, as demonstrated by its present and active enlightened membership, is clearly no form of enlightenment I am capable of attaining.

The only "enlightenment" that you'll ever need is to understand the passions and blind spots which seem to have been in charge of your mental processing of late. Issues which can be activated by circumstance: one day you think clearly and the other day the fog returns. So it's consistency that's missing and to attain that, ruthless self-knowledge (the deep knowledge of no-self) is required. One can only wish you the best as life will provide full opportunity to face the issue full on. You have all the bits and pieces in place! And perhaps over time you'll understand how utterly simple, plain and humble the attempted conversations around enlightenment actually have been here and now, no matter the jargon applied.

Movingalways wrote:I agree that it might have better served the integrity of the conversation if Diebert had waited until I responded to your statement to me before he offered his thoughts on reason vs. passion, but neither you or I know his reasons for posting when he did. Only Diebert knows Diebert's reasons. As does only Leyla know Leyla's reasons.

I can illuminate my reasons for it. Pam you did refer directly to my post for the reason on calling Jup's comment unenlightened. Leyla intersected with a why. Then after some exchange you made a remark about the nature or preferred mode for all philosophical communication on this forum. All in all I think it's not that strange to enter the conversation at any point as it was my own post at the very start of it and it involved also "all communication on this forum", a broad topic inviting naturally some feedback from all.

And another thing, lots and lots of people interject comments on conversations all the time on this forum without "waiting turns". For example Jup commented on Pam-Dennis, then Leyla commented on Jup-Pam and that's just within the exchange described earlier. Only when diebert interjected it was made into something to be "reprimanded". That is totally irrational, an attempted power trip and serves as evidence on why it's needed for any indignants to examine ones modes and truthfulness of the conversations by really going back at times and see what's being said, what it might mean and why one would take issue with it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And another thing, lots and lots of people interject comments on conversations all the time on this forum without "waiting turns". For example Jup commented on Pam-Dennis, then Leyla commented on Jup-Pam and that's just within the exchange described earlier. Only when diebert interjected it was made into something to be "reprimanded". That is totally irrational, an attempted power trip and serves as evidence on why it's needed for any indignants to examine ones modes and truthfulness of the conversations by really going back at times and see what's being said, what it might mean and why one would take issue with it.

I find it amusing that a half-serious comment from me could spawn a whole new branch of discussion. It was unenlightened, I guess, since I didn't intend to say anything very profound. But "self-titillation"?

This just goes to demonstrate how seriously a lot of the forum members take themselves, or more specifically their egos(as opposed to the egos of others!)

jup,

There is no union. If there were, then to what category of truth does the truth that the two categories of truths become united in emptiness belong?

Like Pam indicated the direct experience of emptiness is a total absence of thoughts.
A relinquishing of all views including emptiness itself which is a tool.
Categorical thinking is useful in the Worldliness of the World, go for it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Like Pam indicated the direct experience of emptiness is a total absence of thoughts.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

It doesn't have to in the total absence of thoughts.
ineffable silence.
relinquishing of views.
groundlessness.
Bliss/Detachment.
listening.

Dennis wrote:

Like Pam indicated the direct experience of emptiness is a total absence of thoughts.

It doesn't have to in the total absence of thoughts.
ineffable silence.
relinquishing of views.
groundlessness.
Bliss/Detachment.
listening.

So, the five aggregates exist independently rather than arise "in a linear fashion" and emptiness becomes thoughts independent of form, sensation, perception and mental formations. In other words, the experience of everything but reason is enlightenment.

Pam,

Dennis, I could provide suttas from the Pali Canon that would shine a light on the darkness of your gross misunderstandings of the Buddha's teachings, but experience tells me that to do so would only serve to increase my fool quotient.

You seem content to continue paraphrasing the Buddha (and others) avoiding totally any usage of actual scriptures or doctrine to support your 'instant wisdom claims.' From my perspective, to paraphrase someone to rape their truth.

If and when a Buddha enters a World, it is a condition 'awakened mind' coaching correct view in order to direct for the experience of emptiness.
No world no wake up call (;
It is 'in command of' the situation.
It is experiencing human conditions using human equipment.
Get a life.

Leyla,

So, the five aggregates exist independently rather than arise "in a linear fashion" and emptiness becomes thoughts independent of form, sensation, perception and mental formations. In other words, the experience of everything but reason is enlightenment.

Attachment to the human equipment as a quality of self-nature, as inherently existing, as other than contingent is refuted.
It is not held that it doesn't exist nor is it held to exist as it's own essence.

Sure, that's my understanding of emptiness.

However, it follows from that that a total absence of thought is as much a "direct experience" of emptiness as the presence of many thoughts.

What is the reason you isolated it as the direct experience of emptiness?

The dilemma in that question is the same as that presented by the famous joke from Western philosophy:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
As soon as one attempts to answer the question, one is forced to give misleading information. The only escape is to refrain from answering.

You mean, like you're doing every time you read and reply to a post...

It wasn't a loaded question, darlin'.

Your premises are false.

Dennis,

I'm going to state that another way that might communicate more clearly to you.

Firstly,

I'm not auditing you.