GENIUS FORUMS

Knowledge is the supreme phallus, silly! But you can stick with your teeny ornamental ducks. They suit you! :)

I say your life is a reactivity to verbal signifiers on the one hand and non-verbal signifiers on the other.

L: Knowledge is the supreme phallus, silly! But you can stick with your teeny ornamental ducks. They suit you! :)

Duckman:
Stop that!
Stop it!
being a smartarse.
it never works, ever.

Jee

Dennis Mahar wrote:There's nothing to comprehend.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Though I don't like the word wise, it has awful connotations such as "He knows what is going on".

• These priests distribute the same teaching to everyone. All you have to do is make yourself one-track like them and remain that way through thick and thin. This, they assure you, is attainment of the final state of complete tranquillity. Everything is settled. Everything is understood. Nothing doubting. Nothing seeking. There is no questioning at all. They will not venture a single step beyond this, terrified they might fall and tumble down into a hole. They tread the long pilgrimage of human life as if they were blind from birth, grasping their staff with a clutch of death, refusing to venture forward an inch unless they have it along to prop them up.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Self does not exist [emphasis mine], you are completely wrong in every possible sense. It is like you have admitted you are using the wrong word, yet continue to use it anyway.

It does not even exist dependently and it refers to nothing real or lasting. You can say tree exists, you can say body exists, you can say consciousness exists, you could list every single thing known to be even slightly related, yet none of these things in any way make up a self nor do any combination of these things.

The very word self implies 'mine' or 'me', in fact, it means those things, at the very least self is individual, it is a singular, a separate, false concepts.

You must be mistakenly referring to hundreds of factors and naming your perceived combination of those hundreds of not-me things as 'self' or 'me'. Sure you don't mean 'Dennis' rather than 'mine'?

Dennis does the same as Diebert, except this time I 'look like' a fucking idiot. Which btw would imply that you were not an idiot, that you were correct, the other person being a fucking idiot only on the basis that you are correct and they are wrong. If it turns out to be the other way, then by your own logic you would become the fucking idiot. The decision would require you to actually say what 'self' is rather than just saying it exists dependently and nothing more.

Don't really know you Leyla, besides what seeing your display picture implies. Also extra votes prove nothing in terms of correctness, and incorrectness (according to you ) proves 'fucking idiot'.

So to some that all up, you three (by word of your own insults) are fucking idiots unless you are able to evidence or point to even one thing that could be correctly called 'me', 'mine' or 'self'.

Leyla Shen wrote: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? 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...