GENIUS FORUMS

Take out all of Chuang Tzu's hard sell material, and one is not left with much. Most of it is meaningless crap.

kjones:

Are you kidding?

No, in fact you are illustrating my point with your question.

A deluded person thinks wisdom is advantageous.

Then why did you ask if I was kidding?
You have way to many preconceived ideas. Start with yourself, it is the only way to see others with clear vision.

That voice arises when one sees for oneself, not by looking for sight with the eyes of teachers.

That is what I said - you are repeating me as if to teach me something?

You have a penchant for personalities yourself, your discussion with me is a good example. I rub you the 'wrong' way - hmm.

Is it my verbage?
Is it my personality?
Is it that I do not use terms you like?

What is it that makes you like and dislike?

Well, understanding Ultimate Truth just reflects what's always the case. So I don't have to transform anything. It's just removing errors about reality, on the level of abstraction. That leads one to act correctly, instead of from a deluded belief system.

And what will you see after "removing errors about reality"?

James wrote:

Take out all of Chuang Tzu's hard sell material, and one is not left with much. Most of it is meaningless crap.

It's funny how we create our own realities. From my perspective, most of it is a clear exposition on the nature of Reality and the spiritual path. I find all of it meaningful.

Either I am projecting this out of my own imagination, or your vision is still being hampered by mental blocks.

What's an example of his "hard sell material"?

-

Baby-killing seems repulsive if you think that humans should only die of old age, as if this is by their own choice. Are you concerned because you believe all babies develop into important adults, so it's never worth taking the risk?

It's just not fucking fair, simple as that. In my book being nice is optional, being fair should be required.
Is there something d'matter with people who try to be fair to each other? It is good practice. No one had the right to kill the child you once were, so to be fair you shouldn't have the right to kill children now. Your ideas invite widespread chaos.
Maybe that's what you secretly desire.
Think about that!

Beingof1 wrote:
Bo1: If you talk to the blind, they all want the sense of sight.

KJ: Are you kidding?

Bo1: No, in fact you are illustrating my point with your question.

Could you explain what you mean by blindness, and seeing?

Bo1: There is certain internal desires that a person my want, and yet be wholly ignorant of that desire - that is delusion.
It is not true that the ignorant have no notion of the advantages of truth and wisdom, they see and confess the existence of such and its value.

KJ: A deluded person thinks wisdom is advantageous.

Bo1: Then why did you ask if I was kidding? You have way to many preconceived ideas. Start with yourself, it is the only way to see others with clear vision.

Some, who are deluded, don't care at all about wisdom, and others, also deluded, think they have much to gain by becoming wise.

Bo1: The danger lies in the imposters - keepers of sacred superstition. Their motivation is to keep others in a cycle of perpetual delusion to maintain present status. It drowns out the voice of true wisdom.

KJ: That voice arises when one sees for oneself, not by looking for sight with the eyes of teachers.

Bo1: That is what I said - you are repeating me as if to teach me something?

You have a penchant for personalities yourself, your discussion with me is a good example. I rub you the 'wrong' way - hmm.

Is it my verbage?
Is it my personality?
Is it that I do not use terms you like?

What is it that makes you like and dislike?

I'm exploring your ideas. If there's something illogical there, I'll pinch and worry at it, to cause you to doubt. That's how I respect my values. It's a two-edged sword, so everyone benefits.

Bo1: Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?

You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
-- Jesus

We must all rise above and not merely possess the higher gift - we must be it - your truest self. Not one of humankind but an eternal being that radiates truth and compassion. You do not have truth and wisdom - you become truth and wisdom. You become the answer and the way.

KJ: Well, understanding Ultimate Truth just reflects what's always the case. So I don't have to transform anything. It's just removing errors about reality, on the level of abstraction. That leads one to act correctly, instead of from a deluded belief system.

Bo1: And what will you see after "removing errors about reality"?

Reality without errors.


--

Get Real wrote:No one had the right to kill the child you once were, so to be fair you shouldn't have the right to kill children now. Your ideas invite widespread chaos. Maybe that's what you secretly desire. Think about that!

No, that's not true. My concern is so deep, I would be willing to be accused of lies like these.



I've made a list of very good reasons to support the merciful law of killing unwanted children. See what you think.



1. Humans everywhere, bar a handful of genius oddities, don't have the ability to think for themselves, let alone help to develop extremely sensitive little minds that are children.



2. Many people claim their children's needs prevent any enduring commitment to becoming as wise as possible.




3. Women normally become mothers, which normally requires close ongoing contact with a man (even for alimony alone). So every mother-existence puts a man in the cage of child-rearing as well.




4. Child-rearing is a massive, synchronised, social industry, designed to present reality in a certain way, to ensure it is perpetuated properly in the future. This brain-washes not only the children, but whoever is involved. It's deeply degrading to the spirit.




5. Children don't have resilient abstract abilities, but live in a spontaneous, deeply egotistical realm of emotions and fears; so any adult will struggle against spiritual stagnation because of having to interact with such beings. No blame to the children, they can't help it, but the adults ought to detect this.




6. Only an adult who was irreversibly enlightened could manage child-rearing without becoming reborn





7. Humans generally know that the current population cannot support population and consumption growth, or even zero growth; yet shrinkage plans are not in place *at all*




8. Children are like mirrors that reflect all that a parent does; for the deluded, these reincarnations are the individual's unwisdom become another deluded individual, spawning more of the same. If, in a rare case, the adult manages to become enlightened, its karma is doubled, or trebled, or quadrupled, depending on how many children he or she has to deal with. So, pushing the babies out really makes hard work for oneself, one's spouse, and everyone else that perceives one's example and believes it is the right thing to do.




9. It is unfair to the children, because the parent is the first and most significant model for what "human" means, and if deluded, then....




-

I'm not suggesting we all go out and hit babies on the head with an axe. That would certainly arouse much chaos. Rather, these ideas are aimed at reminding us of clear priorities, to help us avoid doing silly things when a whim takes us.

If you cannot personally give all your time to serious philosophy, then at least you can help others avoid your mistakes.


--

No, I think I got to you bitch! I think it's the truth but you can't admit your hatred for children and people. You rather hang onto this lie of pure motivation, for now. But someday you may have to face your ugly self, your remaining dark side.

The problem is easily solvable without killing innocent children, you maniac. We can look closer at controlling birth and let the present generation be. A much more humane approach.

Jamesh wrote:Take out all of Chuang Tzu's hard sell material, and one is not left with much. Most of it is meaningless crap.

I find this strange too. Most of it is quite simple and to the point.
I guess it is simply a matter of perspective.

Kelly wrote:

If you cannot personally give all your time to serious philosophy, then at least you can help others avoid your mistakes.

But, Kelly -- these are not your mistakes with which to help others in the absence of your commitment to philosophy. Or, are you now planning on having children?

kjones:

Could you explain what you mean by blindness, and seeing?

Blindness is to live from a projection from the mind and believe this is reality.
To not know who you are.

Seeing is unfiltered experience and surrendering to reality.
To know who you are.

Some, who are deluded, don't care at all about wisdom, and others, also deluded, think they have much to gain by becoming wise.

That is a projection - all care about wisdom, they have many reasons for not attaining it.
Some do not know what it is, others do not believe it possible to experience, and some prefer something other than wisdom. Regardless all value wisdom.

Bo1: And what will you see after "removing errors about reality"?


Kelly: Reality without errors.

In the Noble Eightfold Path right thought is essential to wisdom.

And what is right thought? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right thought.

- samma sankappa

Virtue is also essential as is demonstrated by Right Action.

And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.

- samma kammanta

In the Great Forty Sutra the Buddha explains that cultivation of the Eightfold Path leads to the development of two further stages once enlightenment has been reached.

Right knowledge and right release.
One can widen the scope of one's contemplation to include all living beings.

Get Real wrote:No, I think I got to you bitch! I think it's the truth but you can't admit your hatred for children and people. You rather hang onto this lie of pure motivation, for now. But someday you may have to face your ugly self, your remaining dark side.

The problem is easily solvable without killing innocent children, you maniac. We can look closer at controlling birth and let the present generation be. A much more humane approach.

What you imagine as maniac hatred is an exaggeration. But it is true that I don't like the way humans are. It doesn't make sense to me. It's harmful to the mind.

I agree we can control birth. That is the solution I suggested at the end of my post, above. But one who has the strength to do it, should immediately look instead to husbanding his own mind, and abandon wife, child and society.

That is the ultimate marriage. Be the groom for all mankind. What vast compassion is needed for this.


-

Leyla Shen wrote:Kelly wrote:

If you cannot personally give all your time to serious philosophy, then at least you can help others avoid your mistakes.

But, Kelly -- these are not your mistakes with which to help others in the absence of your commitment to philosophy. Or, are you now planning on having children?

I have no idea what you mean. Why shouldn't the commitment to serious philosophy express itself?


-

Beingof1 wrote: KJ: Could you explain what you mean by blindness, and seeing?

Bo1: Blindness is to live from a projection from the mind and believe this is reality. To not know who you are.

Seeing is unfiltered experience and surrendering to reality.
To know who you are.

Care to tell us your personal name?

KJ: Some, who are deluded, don't care at all about wisdom, and others, also deluded, think they have much to gain by becoming wise.

Bo1: That is a projection - all care about wisdom, they have many reasons for not attaining it. Some do not know what it is, others do not believe it possible to experience, and some prefer something other than wisdom. Regardless all value wisdom.

I've been conversing with a number of Buddhists (members of Buddhist groups), and they can't stand reasoning about emptiness, because they say this is hurtful, and does harm. They even request that I take a vow to "take refuge in the sangha" before they'll consider explaining their viewpoint !

Do these people care about wisdom? I'd say not. You sound a lot like them, all face-powder and no face.

Bo1: And what will you see after "removing errors about reality"?

KJ: Reality without errors.

Bo1: In the Noble Eightfold Path right thought is essential to wisdom. "And what is right thought? .....

[Blah blah blah]

.....One can widen the scope of one's contemplation to include all living beings.

There are no living beings!

How about you stop imagining your contemplation can widen or decrease, and just see what's already there ?


-

kjones:

Care to tell us your personal name?

No - not really, for my reasons and if you were me you would understand.

Do these people care about wisdom? I'd say not. You sound a lot like them, all face-powder and no face.

You still do not know who you are. If you knew who you were, you would know who I am.
But since you do not know who you are, you cannot possibly know who I am.

There are no living beings!

You are in a form of optical delusion.You are in contradiction and are projecting that on me.

Wakey, wakey, eggs and bacy.

You want to kill children, but there are no living beings.

But it is true that I don't like the way humans are.

Are there living humans that you like and dislike?

Round and round and round we go - where she stops, nobody knows.

But one who has the strength to do it, should immediately look instead to husbanding his own mind, and abandon wife, child and society.

How can you abandon something that does not exist?


Any of this sound familiar?

1. Humans everywhere, bar a handful of genius oddities, don't have the ability to think for themselves, let alone help to develop extremely sensitive little minds that are children.

2. Many people claim their children's needs prevent any enduring commitment to becoming as wise as possible.

3. Women normally become mothers, which normally requires close ongoing contact with a man (even for alimony alone). So every mother-existence puts a man in the cage of child-rearing as well.

4. Child-rearing is a massive, synchronised, social industry, designed to present reality in a certain way, to ensure it is perpetuated properly in the future. This brain-washes not only the children, but whoever is involved. It's deeply degrading to the spirit.

5. Children don't have resilient abstract abilities, but live in a spontaneous, deeply egotistical realm of emotions and fears; so any adult will struggle against spiritual stagnation because of having to interact with such beings. No blame to the children, they can't help it, but the adults ought to detect this.

6. Only an adult who was irreversibly enlightened could manage child-rearing without becoming reborn

7. Humans generally know that the current population cannot support population and consumption growth, or even zero growth; yet shrinkage plans are not in place *at all*

8. Children are like mirrors that reflect all that a parent does; for the deluded, these reincarnations are the individual's unwisdom become another deluded individual, spawning more of the same. If, in a rare case, the adult manages to become enlightened, its karma is doubled, or trebled, or quadrupled, depending on how many children he or she has to deal with. So, pushing the babies out really makes hard work for oneself, one's spouse, and everyone else that perceives one's example and believes it is the right thing to do.

9. It is unfair to the children, because the parent is the first and most significant model for what "human" means, and if deluded, then....

How much time do you spend entertaining thoughts about the non- existent?

If you want to project fallen thought into me, thats fine. I do not mind that at all - you are merely trying to denegrate me.

I am trying to stop you from hurting yourself - that concerns me infinitely more.

kjones wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Kelly wrote:

If you cannot personally give all your time to serious philosophy, then at least you can help others avoid your mistakes.

But, Kelly -- these are not your mistakes with which to help others in the absence of your commitment to philosophy. Or, are you now planning on having children?

I have no idea what you mean. Why shouldn't the commitment to serious philosophy express itself?


-

Astonishing. You have no children yet you know all about the best way to manage a lack of commitment to serious philosophy -- but you have no idea what I mean? OK.

Commitment to serious philosophy doesn't have to express itself as shock tactics. Though, it might be interesting to consider why it should. I'll get back to you. For me, you could have had the same result if you simply presented the facts.

Reminds me a bit of when I listen to people like G Dubbya warning against the axis of evil. Works for some, I guess.

Beingof1 wrote:KJ: Care to tell us your personal name?

Bo1: No - not really, for my reasons and if you were me you would understand.

Many Buddhists take on Tibetan names, like Lama, Geshe, Rinpoche, and so on. They seem to think a correctly spelt Buddhist name is the substance of holy meaning.

Many are deeply afraid to talk about their personal lives, and prefer lisping breathlessly about Emptiness, Sunyata, Reality, Holiness, the Eightfold Path, and the essence of all living beings. They separate things into worldliness and holiness, as if these two realms really exist.

Come on, what do you really possess that you can lose?

KJ: Do these people care about wisdom? I'd say not. You sound a lot like them, all face-powder and no face.

Bo1: You still do not know who you are. If you knew who you were, you would know who I am. But since you do not know who you are, you cannot possibly know who I am.

More puff. My name is Kelly Jones. That's what my smaller body is called. As for my true self, it would be wrong to call it Kelly Jones, as if there is a not-Kelly Jones.

KJ: There are no living beings!

Bo1: You want to kill children, but there are no living beings.

How is it, that you say all people care about wisdom, and yet hate the thought of eliminating delusion?

My suggestion about getting rid of unwanted children....it has been torn to shreds, poor little creature, by those who love to cling to vague symbols of unconsciousness, by those who are afraid to see, by those obsessed with dreams, and by those afraid to wake up.

Which little child is more precious: the babe that sees the nature of these mirages, crying out sounds of real substance? or the babe that suckles at huge boobs of oblivion?

KJ: But it is true that I don't like the way humans are.

Bo1: Are there living humans that you like and dislike?

I just don't see it as necessary that humans have illogical values. That's the basis of all their actions: and they do all kinds of silly things because of those illogical values.

That's why I focus on the reasoning mind, to aid the process of untangling one's values, and coming to the core values. Then, a person is usually reasonable enough to work out for themselves what to do next.

But one who has the strength to do it, should immediately look instead to husbanding his own mind, and abandon wife, child and society.

How can you abandon something that does not exist?

Once there's a thing appearing in the mind, then it's conceived of, and it exists. But often, another conception arises, that things that appear really and truly exist, inherently, and that one must do something about those things.

What I've been suggesting is along the lines of: to give the mind some space to consider what things really are, drop those deeply-cherished beliefs and things (like family, and so on). Then one can rationally and properly consider the nature of things, and eventually be able to abandon the belief in their inherent existence.

As for my list of very good reasons supporting the concept of the merciful dispatching of unwanted children:

One who sees these things as lacking real existence doesn't have enough faith in them to cling to them. He holds to nothing, and openly speaks against attachment. If he is attacked for doing so, it means those who are attacking are holding onto illusions. They might benefit by thinking about why they are attacking....


-

kjones:

Come on, what do you really possess that you can lose?

You are still innocent about what some are willing to do to maintain illusion. We have detente at the present and this is OK with me.
You keep trying to spindle me with what you think I think - you are about a trillion light years off the mark. It has nothing to do with taking on a Tibetan name.

More puff. My name is Kelly Jones. That's what my smaller body is called. As for my true self, it would be wrong to call it Kelly Jones, as if there is a not-Kelly Jones.

OK - well you just cleared that up by saying what I said was "more puff" and what you said was enlightened thought and expression eh?

You better start being honest or I am not going to wast my time feeding your ego defense. Better for you to go to your masters so they can reinforce more of what cannot possibly survive.

How is it, that you say all people care about wisdom, and yet hate the thought of eliminating delusion?

The same way you do - its one and the same.
I gave you the answer, start with yourself rather than projecting.
What is true for you is true always.

My suggestion about getting rid of unwanted children....it has been torn to shreds, poor little creature, by those who love to cling to vague symbols of unconsciousness, by those who are afraid to see, by those obsessed with dreams, and by those afraid to wake up.

The only clinging that is being done is by you.
You need a mirror - badly.

I just don't see it as necessary that humans have illogical values. That's the basis of all their actions: and they do all kinds of silly things because of those illogical values.

Yup - like trying to kill what does not exist, analogy or not it shows a deeper thought of trying to achieve enlightenment by changing the external rather than internal.

If you want to see the world enlightened best start with you.

As for my list of very good reasons supporting the concept of the merciful dispatching of unwanted children:

You are not listening at all and you lack honesty.

One more chance to actually respond to what is being said and I will leave you to figure it out for yourself what will take years to untangle. There are far to many who do have earnestness, you just want validation. You can get that anywhere if it is a mutual ego petting contest.

I'd prefer not to let this problem fester. Any rational person could come up with a solution like this, I think it's pretty humane.

It's a long post because it's a conversation, explaining things out in a conversational style.

Intro:

I'll use Kelly Jones as an example. She has seven kids (phew)! The eldest is Soheil, he's a 14yo, then there's Maria, Guy, Roslyn, Ross, Namgyal, and Zasep. Zasep is 6 years old. Kelly is a single parent, and gets alimony payments, plus financial support from the government. There's one father, Gordon, who is uninterested in parenting. Now Kelly wants to give all her time to philosophy. She gets the brood together, and says the following:

Conversation:

"Right, you lot. As you all know, I value philosophy. I think a life worth living is one free of delusion and mistaken ideas. You also know I value and respect each of you becoming as intelligent and thoughtful as you possibly can. If one day, you happen to want to explore philosophy, then I'll answer all your questions about philosophy as best I can. Right now, I'm still not 100% clear on everything. Because I value myself, and each of you, becoming as wise as possible, and able to stand on your own feet, without any attachments, I have to dedicate more and more of my attention to philosophy. This way, you've got more chance of becoming good adults.

"I've decided that, in six weeks' time, I'll be spending most of the week away. For the next six weeks, I'll be away for each weekend, to see how you cope. You all know how to read, and you all know how to use the telephone, so if you have any problems, you can telephone me. Tonight, we're going to make a government, meaning, a system for solving problems. It is a list of all the possible problems that you're likely to face. Anything that you are concerned about, we'll put into the government laws. Then, when you encounter that problem, you can either remember what solution we decided on, or read the laws in the book. If you can't think how to follow the solution yourself, then feel free to ask one of the others. If you're still confused, or it's urgent, then telephone me.

"Now, I'm not abandoning you. You all know that I don't believe in love, and never encouraged you to accept the idea that people can love without hurting each other. I am doing this because I respect you each greatly, and think this is really the best thing I can possibly do for you and for me, and for everyone else. Ask me any questions you like, I'll do my best to find out the rational reply.

"I know you're all pretty independent, and manage your own lives well. This is a good thing. You're learning to think for yourselves. Nevertheless, we can't predict anything with certainty, so there may be a time when you're really stuck. You know the typical things, like what to do if someone keeps trying to hurt your body (you ask them firmly to stop, and if they won't, then try to get away), or if there's a big fire (cover your mouth and nose, and get to a safe spot), or a big flood (climb onto the roof and use the food, parkas, and blankets in the roof cubby-hole), and whatnot. There might be things we can't think of. In that case, and for some reason you can't get through on the telephone to me, you really have to think for yourself.

"We'll talk over everything you can think of, in the next six weeks, to make sure most of the problems are ironed out, before you're more on your own. I've talked to my father, and also to Gordon, so if your own solutions aren't working, and you can't get me on the line, they said they're happy to chat with you. But don't push that option, as you really ought to try find solutions yourself.

"It's very important that you each think of our lawbook as handy tips. Don't get upset if they're not always obeyed. You might think of better laws, or ways to make laws better. Discuss them with each other. But don't just throw laws out the window, and treat each other as illogical and bad thinkers. That's no way to solve problems. These rules are here to give you some help. Put the truth first, and thinking.

"Now, I've got a recording machine here, so none of us has to do any writing while we talk. I've had it recording from the start. I'll test to see it's working. Right, now let's start with Zasep's ideas: what's most important to you, that you think might be a problem when I'm not around?....[etc.]"



I think any rational human could think of something like that. Children aren't able to think deeply about the nature of things, so to tell them they don't inherently exist would amount to "You don't exist at all, and are invisible." But, once they start to think more rationally, they can slowly develop a conceptual understanding about concepts, and from that point, become less likely to associate "real thing" with "me".

kjones:

I'd prefer not to let this problem fester. Any rational person could come up with a solution like this, I think it's pretty humane.

You begin with yourself, all that is needed.

I think any rational human could think of something like that. Children aren't able to think deeply about the nature of things, so to tell them they don't inherently exist would amount to "You don't exist at all, and are invisible."

Interesting: I would say if you are caring about your children as much as yourself, you will make the right decision. In most modern industrial nations the State is going to scoop up the children, this must be considered.

If the strings on the instrument are set too tight, then the instrument will not play harmoniously. If the strings are set too loose, the instrument will not produce music. Only the middle way, not too tight and not too loose, will produce harmonious music.

-- You know ;)

Sacrificing others is an ancient concept of religious belief. You know, human sacrifice and all.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.

-- Jesus

My question is, if your beautiful face is keeping you from wisdom (such as being persued by the opposite sex), do you cut off your nose?

How about a person that steals, they are a cleptomaniac and cannot keep from stealing, yet desires wisdom, does this person cut off their hand?

Beingof1 wrote:Interesting: I would say if you are caring about your children as much as yourself, you will make the right decision.

Conceiving of all things as empty of inherent existence, doesn't mean one has to put up with things like cancer, illogic, dogs, poorly-designed towns, and ill-planned pregnancies.

In most modern industrial nations the State is going to scoop up the children, this must be considered.

Yes, I think you've hit the target. Parents are worried they'll lose their children altogether, such as to their divorced spouse, or to the State. Underlying any "noble" feeling of having deleteriously exposed something that cannot protect itself, is really the feeling of losing control over something that empowered them.

Writing the above conversation made me aware of the selfish feeling of hunger that parents have towards the weak and untutored. I think it is this that parents fear losing. They want to be the top dog, and don't like the thought of suddenly being alone, without the adoration and dependence of their progeny.

Looking at the example, again: Kelly Jones has begotten seven children, and now has suddenly changed her tack. She really looks unreliable, and fickle of mind. She never bothered to beget a virtuous life, and now has to deal with a lot of problems to get back on track. She begot the wrong thing.

No wonder most people never try the solitary life, after starting a family. There's so much pride injured in having to turn around, acknowledge it's all a mistake. Then they attack others for asking them to try!

Sacrificing others is an ancient concept of religious belief. You know, human sacrifice and all.

It's quite necessary to conceptually sacrifice all humans, and eradicate human bigotry from the mind, if one is to understand the nonattachment of the Middle Way.

My question is, if your beautiful face is keeping you from wisdom (such as being persued by the opposite sex), do you cut off your nose?

How about a person that steals, they are a cleptomaniac and cannot keep from stealing, yet desires wisdom, does this person cut off their hand?

What holds back the hand from knocking, and the voice from asking, with all one's mind, heart, and soul, are really thoughts. The thought might be, "I need to be attractive to others, or they will reject me". It might be "I need to be on a par with others, or they will judge me as inferior".

So, it's really on a level of thought that one knocks, or doesn't knock.

Isn't it odd that people don't seem to care about changing their thoughts, but are terribly upset about losing "things"? It's the animal in us, that is distracted by loves, unable to think clearly, and thus unable to conceive of all things (such as putting down unwanted children) as thoughts.

It cannot see itself, simply as the thoughts and experiences of consciousness.


-

kjones:

Conceiving of all things as empty of inherent existence, doesn't mean one has to put up with things like cancer, illogic, dogs, poorly-designed towns, and ill-planned pregnancies.

You are saying two different things and applying one to 'others that do not exist' and a completely different standard of thought to 'your Self'.

Any truth you find must be universal in its application, if it is true for you it is true to all 'others' at all times. If children do not exist because of ill-planned pregnancies than this same idea must be applied to yourself. If you cannot "put up with" others than you cannot put up with yourself.

They want to be the top dog, and don't like the thought of suddenly being alone, without the adoration and dependence of their progeny.

That is not the only reason parents have chidren - if that is true you only seek enlightenment for the same reasons.

She begot the wrong thing.

That is like saying "I am a wrong thing".

It's quite necessary to conceptually sacrifice all humans, and eradicate human bigotry from the mind, if one is to understand the nonattachment of the Middle Way.

I understand what you are saying and I agree, my point is you cannot find enlightenment by throwing your offspring into a volcano and expect there to be no harmful effects.

That would be like voting for Hitler; he can provide for more living space after eradicating many subhumans so we 'true humans' can have more room to contemplate the emptiness of where they once lived.

So, it's really on a level of thought that one knocks, or doesn't knock.

Exactly Kelly, truth can be found in a concentration camp that is packed with people. It can be found on a mountain or in the city, it is not the external, it is the internal thoughts.

It's the animal in us, that is distracted by loves, unable to think clearly, and thus unable to conceive of all things (such as putting down unwanted children) as thoughts.

Children are not just thoughts - is that all you are?

You are applying a double standard to others and excluding yourself. If you have to put down unwanted children, who exactly is making the decision to do this?

Beingof1 wrote:KJ: Conceiving of all things as empty of inherent existence, doesn't mean one has to put up with things like cancer, illogic, dogs, poorly-designed towns, and ill-planned pregnancies.

Bo1: You are saying two different things and applying one to 'others that do not exist' and a completely different standard of thought to 'your Self'.

Any truth you find must be universal in its application, if it is true for you it is true to all 'others' at all times. If children do not exist because of ill-planned pregnancies than this same idea must be applied to yourself. If you cannot "put up with" others than you cannot put up with yourself.

This is true when there is no understanding of the real nature of things, including self. When there is understanding, then there's nothing to destroy, as no thing can be destroyed, having never existed in the first place.

Note that this understanding has mentally dropped false views and beliefs, in order to have arisen. That is a form of "not putting up with a self".

They want to be the top dog, and don't like the thought of suddenly being alone, without the adoration and dependence of their progeny.

That is not the only reason parents have chidren - if that is true you only seek enlightenment for the same reasons.

I doubt there has been a single human being that ever existed, that decided to beget a child for utterly selfless reasons.

Your second line implies all parents seek enlightenment for selfish reasons. That's patently false: but people do seek enlightenment selfishly, they can't not, since they aren't enlightened while seeking it.

KJ: It's quite necessary to conceptually sacrifice all humans, and eradicate human bigotry from the mind, if one is to understand the nonattachment of the Middle Way.

Bo1: I understand what you are saying and I agree, my point is you cannot find enlightenment by throwing your offspring into a volcano and expect there to be no harmful effects.

That would be like voting for Hitler; he can provide for more living space after eradicating many subhumans so we 'true humans' can have more room to contemplate the emptiness of where they once lived.

In effect, that's what a dedicated mindset to enlightenment does: it is a form of genocide. It decimates the will to unconsciousness, and everything that goes along with the mind of attachment. That's full of harmful effects!

I think your objections are arising from misinterpreting this terrifying ordeal as merely killing children. It's the individual who struggles to overcome all the mental arms stretching out for a fantastic Big-Safe-Mum, that is driving the will to protect little children. Any panic and consternation over the idea of killing babies, is really coming from this value.

KJ: So, it's really on a level of thought that one knocks, or doesn't knock.

Bo1: Exactly Kelly, truth can be found in a concentration camp that is packed with people. It can be found on a mountain or in the city, it is not the external, it is the internal thoughts.

There is no external-internal. Everything is conceptual. David's example of a man "precariously perched" in love, earlier in this thread, showed what happens to a person when they don't have the intellect to realise absolute truths.

Until now, I have pursued the idea of a mercy law for killing unwanted dependents, to illustrate what a rational society would allow. A society with individuals who value recognising that things are created in the mind. I've used it to reflect on the law of the individual who plunges wholly into the Infinite, rather than as a law existing in an external world.

K: It's the animal in us, that is distracted by loves, unable to think clearly, and thus unable to conceive of all things (such as putting down unwanted children) as thoughts.

Bo1: Children are not just thoughts - is that all you are?

You are applying a double standard to others and excluding yourself. If you have to put down unwanted children, who exactly is making the decision to do this?

Yes, all I am is thought. I am the unwanted children, and the killing of them. There is one standard, and if I allow any of those unvaluable children to be raised, I have then contradicted it.


-

You completely ignored my points - best of luck to ya

Did you want me to agree wholeheartedly, without thinking whether what you wrote was true or false?

I openly shared my reasoning about your points, giving you what I have reasoned to be true. So far, I have demonstrated that your points don't stand up.

Would you care to briefly state your basic point, and why it is absolutely true?


-

Sure; You ignore what I say and then go on to contradict yourself in each following paragraph that you write, sometimes in the same paragraph.

You have a mass of conflicting thought that is trying to prove 'emptiness' and over and over you affirm there is no emptiness.

Because you have to eliminate something or someone that is not really there but then again they are - but then they aren`t really there but sometimes they are.

So we must pursue logic by being illogical and we must follow wisdom for the betterment of all (that aren`t really there) by killing our children(that aren`t existing anyway so its OK to kill them) - but bear in mind we are only killing them for their own good to show them they are not really there.

We must be selfish for the good of all - that aren`t really there but maybe?

If we abondon our children its OK because they don`t exist anyway so its not like we are really leaving anyone behind, its for their own good anyway - that is if they really existed.

And on and on and on.

Do you understand how you contradict yourself and are you ready to listen?

If not this is my last post.