GENIUS FORUMS

jupiviv wrote:

movingalways wrote:What I am suggesting is that compassion for all sentient beings, every degree of pain included, co-exists with wisdom of causality. How is this not sound reasoning?

What you're suggesting is that wisdom involves feeling pain for no other reason than that other sentient beings are feeling it as well, which is not wise. I could just as well say that it involves killing oneself every time a balloon explodes, in order to share the terrible fate of the balloon.

Compassion for pain is not the experience of pain. In other words, in order for compassion [the spiritual heart] to exist, knowledge of pain must exist, but in order for pain to exist, knowledge of compassion does not have to exist.

What is different about having compassion for non-intellectual consciousness than having compassion for intellectual consciousness is that the former takes one deeper into the truth of The Body, deep into the viscera of the universe. Why would this experience of depth compassion not be wise?

Your analogy of the balloon is not sound reasoning. First, the balloon is unconscious, and second, although humans have the option to kill themselves, animals do not, another reason to expand one's compassion consciousness.

David wrote: It is certainly the case that a sage is compassionate towards all beings, including those with animal-consciousness, so that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is one of twisting and diminishing great spiritual teachings in order to make them fit one's pet pleasures.

What you say may be true, but at least the person who wrote the wiki piece dealt with animal consciousness, the zebra-lion-spider-fly kind, something one rarely finds on philosophy boards. It also got the attention of many posters on this board to comment on suffering in general, which for me, is a good thing.

Compassion is a function of understanding. It cannot reach beyond understanding.can only be compassionate to the degree that one understands the reality of the universe, and by extension the reality of others. The author strikes me as having very little understanding of anything, and thus her "compassion" is simply an unconscious expression of self-pity. The sight of innocent animals brings to the surface unresolved pain from her past.

I agree, compassion is a function of one's understanding of the reality of the universe. Whatever was the intention of the writer, again, it stimulated discussion, again, a good thing.

Quote:
movingalways: Are you denying there is a difference between being a wild animal that suffers the affects of climate and predation and being like a wild animal that suffers the affects of intellectual ignorance?

David: There are some differences, naturally. For example, wild animals don't make ugly spectacles of themselves every time they open their mouths.

Please explain to me how the use of "ugly spectacle" falls into the functionality of compassion.

Quote:
Also, do you truly believe that nirvana is forever lost to animal consciousness, either actual or metaphorical?

If such a person can be reborn as a human, then all is not lost. He has a chance. But undergoing such a rebirth is very difficult for anyone who has settled into animal-consciousness, just as it is very difficult for a comfortable, middle-aged person to rekindle the idealism of his youth.

Very difficult, yes, but very difficult is not the same as "lost forever", which were the words you used.

Quote:
movingalways: If so, how is your view different than the Christian view of eternal damnation in a 'place' called hell?

David: You mean, apart from the fact that the Christian place is pure fiction? Look, life isn't fair. Most people are handed the rough end of the stick - they are born, the suffer many privations, many hells, and then they die, never to be seen again. It offends our sense of justice, but that's just how it is.

Here I was referring to your taking the absolute position when referring to the possibility for Nirvana for animal consciousness, in this case, the human kind, the absolute position of "no Nirvana is possible for them", a position of absoluteness most Christians take when speaking of their fictional place called hell. Above you amended your position to "he has a chance", a position I find to be more realistic and certainly, more hopeful. Without hope for every being to enter Nirvana, does not Nirvana then fall short of its Ideal?

The thing is Pam,
People write stuff here from 'Ivory Tower'.
Lofty, intellectual conceptualising.

'As if'.

Situationally,
their responses are altogether a failure to walk the talk.

What it's really about is the construction of a 'board archetype' of 'oughtness'.
How one 'ought' to be.

For instance, a Marxist takes Marx into their centre as Core and the Surface is explained thru' the lens of Marx.
The Core and the Surface are one.

Dennis Mahar wrote: People write stuff here from 'Ivory Tower'.
Lofty, intellectual conceptualising.

Intellectual, this forum? You should go out more, tasting actual intellectual environments to understand how wrong you are. You can hardly see proper distinctions anymore it seems.

It might look like a tower I guess (so masculine as imagery too!) for any girly guy hardly capable of keeping one concept in his mind at the time. Flowy blowy.

Your own intellect shows so much weed, it runs away with you! That's why I push you so hard, you need to straighten yourself out, Dennis. Your own ivory nihilistic rut I suppose.

You see, Diebert.
point proved.

How Dennis 'ought' to be.

Dennis believes Diebert ought to change.

movingalways wrote:

David Quinn wrote: There are some differences, naturally. For example, wild animals don't make ugly spectacles of themselves every time they open their mouths.

Please explain to me how the use of "ugly spectacle" falls into the functionality of compassion.

The first step on the path to health is becoming aware of the illness. If one doesn't perceive ignorance as ugly, both in oneself and in others, then how will one be motivated to seek wisdom?

movingalways wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

movingalways wrote: Also, do you truly believe that nirvana is forever lost to animal consciousness, either actual or metaphorical?

If such a person can be reborn as a human, then all is not lost. He has a chance. But undergoing such a rebirth is very difficult for anyone who has settled into animal-consciousness, just as it is very difficult for a comfortable, middle-aged person to rekindle the idealism of his youth.

Very difficult, yes, but very difficult is not the same as "lost forever", which were the words you used.

Okay, I overstated the case, but only slightly so. Losing your human birth is a very serious matter and it compels one to warn against it in the strongest possible manner. Because the terrible fact is, once lost, very few ever regain it.

movingalways wrote:Above you amended your position to "he has a chance", a position I find to be more realistic and certainly, more hopeful. Without hope for every being to enter Nirvana, does not Nirvana then fall short of its Ideal?

Ah, that is your human sense of fairness and justice coming into play. If only it were so! Here we have a clash between how you would like things to be and how things really are.

Nirvana always remains what it is - full consciousness of the nature of reality - and it never varies, regardless of who has tapped into it. It doesn't become more enhanced if lots of people become aware of it, nor does it diminish if only a few are aware of it. It is the holy grail for all humans, and a non-issue for everyone else.

I don't care one way or the other.
Just the distinction.

If I go down to the Buddhist group I'm set upon to be this or that.
If I go down to the Christians I'm set upon to be this or that.
If I go down to the Men's Group I'm set upon to be this or that.

All these pointing fingers 'in the face',
you're OK, you're not-OK, whatever.


The lotus sutra 'gets at' this shit.
Inauthentic modes of Being.
Being Bodhisattva is disclosed as vapid.
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger 'get at it'.
de Beauvoir 'gets at it'.
Being and ambiguity.

Diebert:

Are you saying that instinctual, low conscious reactions are then the only means to experience "genuine reality"?

Those “low conscious reactions” are highly tuned, evolutionary responses to the environment. So, unless you want to suggest that the natural environment doesn’t exist and only the supreme high conscious of a super-human does, I really don’t see what is “low conscious” about them.

When you say “low conscious reaction”, are you talking here about a species- rather than self-conscious act? How would you make this distinction in humans?

I think you're introducing "raw sensual data" again somehow, perhaps the peripheral or even autonomic nervous system as some mechanism that provides "realities" or "truth" to us instead of just sensory experiences

.

Are you suggesting truth/reality and sensory experience are mutually exclusive; that truth/reality inherently exists in humans? You know that would be absurd, right?

If there's a clearing up in this area I'd say it's a side-effect of quitening the mind by letting it work naturally instead like some bloke hammering his head against the walls (a.k.a. ignorance).

Indeed.

You are right though to suggest people do tend to withdraw their attention and senses, extremely internalizing it and weaken that way the whole of the mind by some obsession. It's what you can see if you walk around in the city every day. It's not just the philosopher's problem.

Sentient life is not separate from its environment. The keen senses of a lion on the Savannah are as much the Savannah itself as is the scorching heat of the sun. Bring him into the city, and he deteriorates into a couch potato; a spectacle, complete with psycho-social disorders.

With mind reading I was talking about the ability to understand to some degree someone elses position and concerns as if they were ones own.

Really, are each of us ever assuming anything but as-if? Unless, that is, someone else’s position is actually more than merely “as-if” one’s own...

That kind of sympathetic bond facilitates communication with all types of animals including humans. It's a highly conscious activity really, not unconscious. The utter base of true compassion.

An interplay of species life, i.e., human consciousness.

Dennis Mahar wrote:I don't care one way or the other.
Just the distinction.

If I go down to the Buddhist group I'm set upon to be this or that.
If I go down to the Christians I'm set upon to be this or that.
If I go down to the Men's Group I'm set upon to be this or that.

All these pointing fingers 'in the face',
you're OK, you're not-OK, whatever.

Dennis Mahar wrote:You see, Diebert.
point proved.

Dennis thinks Diebert is not-OK.

This is the problem that shows up with nouning the verb.

what you just said in truth is

david stands in :

dennis thinks diebert is not-ok

?

movingalways wrote:Compassion for pain is not the experience of pain. In other words, in order for compassion [the spiritual heart] to exist, knowledge of pain must exist, but in order for pain to exist, knowledge of compassion does not have to exist.

The compassion of wise people is identical with their knowledge. That is why it is said that Buddhas are compassionate towards all things, since they understand the nature of all things.

What is different about having compassion for non-intellectual consciousness than having compassion for intellectual consciousness is that the former takes one deeper into the truth of The Body, deep into the viscera of the universe. Why would this experience of depth compassion not be wise?

I don't know what you mean by non-intellectual consciousness. All consciousness is intellectual.

No form of compassion can take you into the truth unless it is backed by wisdom.

Your analogy of the balloon is not sound reasoning. First, the balloon is unconscious, and second, although humans have the option to kill themselves, animals do not, another reason to expand one's compassion consciousness.

Why are unconscious things are excluded from your compassion? Also, animals kill themselves all the time.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote: People write stuff here from 'Ivory Tower'.
Lofty, intellectual conceptualising.

Intellectual, this forum? You should go out more, tasting actual intellectual environments to understand how wrong you are. You can hardly see proper distinctions anymore it seems.

It might look like a tower I guess (so masculine as imagery too!) for any girly guy hardly capable of keeping one concept in his mind at the time. Flowy blowy.

Your own intellect shows so much weed, it runs away with you! That's why I push you so hard, you need to straighten yourself out, Dennis. Your own ivory nihilistic rut I suppose.

Dennis is correct.

Since it runs on words backed by concepts, this forum is an intellectual environment.

Personal dissatisfaction with the perceived quality of intellectualizing, or with the concepts that form the selection of words, or with the efficacy of transmission, are related topics that do not negate the fact that this is an intellectual environment.

David: Nirvana always remains what it is - full consciousness of the nature of reality - and it never varies, regardless of who has tapped into it. It doesn't become more enhanced if lots of people become aware of it, nor does it diminish if only a few are aware of it. It is the holy grail for all humans, and a non-issue for everyone else.

Is the cosmology to which you refer that of being a soul or spirit or being of causal effects (karma) that is born into the 31 planes of existences, the higher ones being mostly of pleasure, the lower ones being mostly of pain, with the most fortunate birth being that of the mid-way plane, the plane of human being? The plane of human being wherein the soul or spirit or being can find exit from the suffering of the duality of pleasure and pain via the middle way [to Nirvana] to be born no more, to exist no more?

My understanding of the cosmology of the 31 planes of existence is that the reason why it is so difficult to enter Nirvana if your causal body is caught in the upper realms is because it is very difficult to detach one's consciousness from the experience of bliss and ecstasy [it feels too good), with the opposite being true if your causal body is caught in the lower realms [it feels too bad]. Also my understanding of the cosmology of the 31 planes of existence is that every plane is temporary, even if it exists for thousands of births or 'eons', that eventually every spirit or soul or being wearies of suffering the teeter-totter experience of pleasure and pain and seeks to discover the way 'to jump off.'

From the 31 planes of existence, describing the human realm, source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html

You are here (for now).

Rebirth as a human being is extraordinarily rare (SN 56.48). It is also extraordinarily precious, as its unique balance of pleasure and pain (SN 35.135) facilitates the development of virtue and wisdom to the degree necessary to set one free from the entire cycle of rebirths.

For me, the cosmology of the 31 planes of existence serves the human wisdom faculties of logic, intuition and compassion.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Situationally,
their responses are altogether a failure to walk the talk.

Dennis, this is an assumption, no? I need not bore you with the definition of assume. :-)

Cahoot wrote:Since it runs on words backed by concepts, this forum is an intellectual environment.

All forums run on "words backed by concepts". Hell, even language runs like that. But the specific pointed charge was that "people" were engaged in "lofty, intellectual conceptualizing" here. Which I really hope they would, if they could! First they would have to find the entrance to that tower though, hard enough for those living in some nihilistic wasteland. They rather rail against it like Don Quixote! Or pee mark it like a non-intellectual cat. If only it was the Cheshire one!

jupiviv wrote: I don't know what you mean by non-intellectual consciousness. All consciousness is intellectual.

Panpsychism says that all things possess varying degrees of consciousness. Combine this premise with experience, and you can infer that rock consciousness is not intellectual.

Consciousness of sound is non-intellectual until mind attaches a concept. Make a non-conceptual sound yourself, such as untranslated Sanskrit, and you can remain conscious of the sound without conceptual association. Undistracted attention to non-intellectual consciousness is an added bonus.

Works with sight too, but not so easy to disassociate the conceptual from eyesight. Notice how this video gives insight to mind constructing reality from non-conceptual sight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE

Leyla Shen wrote:Those “low conscious reactions” are highly tuned, evolutionary responses to the environment. So, unless you want to suggest that the natural environment doesn’t exist and only the supreme high conscious of a super-human does, I really don’t see what is “low conscious” about them.

Just having highly tuned, evolutionary responses to the environment does not create any reflections on having "existence" or not. They don't need to and they would react on truth and falsehood alike. Unless of course an even finer, more cumbersome adaptation evolved to distinguish more accurately. Which triggers as well the development of abilities to counter that. The truth-deception race: where there's one tuning itself the opposite adapts as well. A biological dialectic if you will. This becomes speculation but it could hold in the psychological realm quite well.

Are you suggesting truth/reality and sensory experience are mutually exclusive; that truth/reality inherently exists in humans?

Just different categories all together. The sensory experience does not define what is real and what's not. Or what's "true" or "false" in terms of our values.

Sentient life is not separate from its environment. The keen senses of a lion on the Savannah are as much the Savannah itself as is the scorching heat of the sun. Bring him into the city, and he deteriorates into a couch potato; a spectacle, complete with psycho-social disorders.

Could city dwellers evolve? Like city birds chirping louder to outdo traffic. The unfit perish unemployed in the Savannah: might fall into some silicon mine shaft.

With mind reading I was talking about the ability to understand to some degree someone elses position and concerns as if they were ones own.

Really, are each of us ever assuming anything but as-if? Unless, that is, someone else’s position is actually more than merely “as-if” one’s own...

Well, yes. Even ones own position is assumed to be ones own, when reflected upon. You see, it starts with reading your own mind indeed :)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Cahoot wrote:Since it runs on words backed by concepts, this forum is an intellectual environment.

All forums run on "words backed by concepts". Hell, even language runs like that. But the specific pointed charge was that "people" were engaged in "lofty, intellectual conceptualizing" here. Which I really hope they would, if they could! First they would have to find the entrance to that tower though, hard enough for those living in some nihilistic wasteland. They rather rail against it like Don Quixote! Or pee mark it like a non-intellectual cat. If only it was the Cheshire one!

Funny. Some good mind pictures there. Is English your second language? I only ask because I've noticed things with people who speak English as a second language.

Duplicate

Pam,
Of course its an assumption.
and it holds ground phenomenally.
what we're talking about is affectivity,
Response to suffering.
constructing an archetype against a natural response to suffering
is to lose the way.
a pretense.

And as we all know, those steeped in pretense are not-OK.

Those who do not respond to suffering in the manner of women are not-OK.

Not being a woman is an affectation, which is not OK.

movingalways wrote:

David: Nirvana always remains what it is - full consciousness of the nature of reality - and it never varies, regardless of who has tapped into it. It doesn't become more enhanced if lots of people become aware of it, nor does it diminish if only a few are aware of it. It is the holy grail for all humans, and a non-issue for everyone else.

Is the cosmology to which you refer that of being a soul or spirit or being of causal effects (karma) that is born into the 31 planes of existences, the higher ones being mostly of pleasure, the lower ones being mostly of pain, with the most fortunate birth being that of the mid-way plane, the plane of human being? The plane of human being wherein the soul or spirit or being can find exit from the suffering of the duality of pleasure and pain via the middle way [to Nirvana] to be born no more, to exist no more?

My understanding of the cosmology of the 31 planes of existence is that the reason why it is so difficult to enter Nirvana if your causal body is caught in the upper realms is because it is very difficult to detach one's consciousness from the experience of bliss and ecstasy [it feels too good), with the opposite being true if your causal body is caught in the lower realms [it feels too bad]. Also my understanding of the cosmology of the 31 planes of existence is that every plane is temporary, even if it exists for thousands of births or 'eons', that eventually every spirit or soul or being wearies of suffering the teeter-totter experience of pleasure and pain and seeks to discover the way 'to jump off.'

"Cosmology" is not the right word for it. It is simply a mentally-created map or schemata, a way of analyzing the human condition in the context of wisdom. The 31 planes of existence (or 6 planes, or 9, or whatever number the individual sage happens to make up) are categories of psychological experience, which serve as a tool for helping people assess what they need to do in order to make spiritual progress.

You're right in saying that the so-called higher planes of existence, the god-realms, are actually lower than the human realm. Those who live in the god-realms experience far too much emotional pleasure and power to ever want to start taking truth seriously and make the changes needed to become enlightened. People like Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Bono, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lady Gaga, Picasso, the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict - i.e. the wealthy, the charismatic, the socially powerful, the beautiful, the clever and the gifted - these are the gods who have too much to lose to ever want to seek out the human realm.

David Quinn wrote:People like Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Bono, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lady Gaga, Picasso, the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict - i.e. the wealthy, the charismatic, the socially powerful, the beautiful, the clever and the gifted - these are the gods who have too much to lose to ever want to seek out the human realm.

I wouldn't put anyone in that list except Bill Gates and Picasso in the "god" realms. My understanding is that the god realms are the realm of experiencing a purely *intellectual* bliss, clarity or power, which may or may not spill over into the realm of the emotions. I find it useful to refer to great men who exhibit some of the characteristics of enlightenment, but not all, as gods. Bach was a "god", of sorts, as were philosophers like Weininger, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer(to a much greater extent of course).