GENIUS FORUMS

Cahoot wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:I can express it much more succinctly: since nothing is really happening, if you don't believe what you see, you won't suffer.

Sounds like the political left’s secular religion … fantasy fervently believed.

Eventually feeble-minded belief encounters reality.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/detr ... uptcy.html

Don’t be too quick to discount the power of denial and deceit to sustain delusion not bound by geo-political borders.

Ding!

Clean out your ears, and your mind. That way, when the tongue strikes, it won’t turn in on itself.

I hold my blade at the throat of all gods. Thus I reveal their mortality…

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:I can express it much more succinctly: since nothing is really happening, if you don't believe what you see, you won't suffer.

I've tried to understand this. Which statement was this referring to? You're right though, it's also the point of religion...

Yes, just before I hit "submit", ewil had posted (to whom I will reply later). It was a reply to the big buddhist rant from SNw.

In reality however:

Everything is actually happening.
There's no big difference between seeing and believing as both work with interpretations and anticipations.
There's still suffering no matter what you believe or not.

I believe everything I see, but I don't see everything I believe...

Leyla Shen wrote:I believe everything I see, but I don't see everything I believe...

Even believing starts with envisioning something. Perhaps even anticipation might kick in; more about bigger pictures though.

Leyla Shen wrote: Clean out your ears, and your mind. That way, when the tongue strikes, it won’t turn in on itself.

Why not use the tongue to clean out ears and mind :-) Good party trick in any case.

What happened is a story about what happened.
'I' takes centre stage.
something about thwarted ambition, being dominated.
swept away.

do the crime do the time.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That the "essential nature of things" you are experiencing is another appearance. Just a biggie, that's all.

Exactly,only adding to the clarity of the point it seems. These are only moment to moment appearances. Uncontrolled, uninfluenced, constantly changing. Which includes all thoughts/concepts.

Which leads to the all important "not me".

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That the "essential nature of things" you are experiencing is another appearance. Just a biggie, that's all.

Exactly,only adding to the clarity of the point it seems. These are only moment to moment appearances. Uncontrolled, uninfluenced, constantly changing. Which includes all thoughts/concepts.

Which leads to the all important "not me".

Diebert, stop it, I tell you! Speaking to not-him will only get you as far as speaking to him; to the meaningless clarity of nowhere—because that’s where he is!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote: Clean out your ears, and your mind. That way, when the tongue strikes, it won’t turn in on itself.

Why not use the tongue to clean out ears and mind :-) Good party trick in any case.

Yes, well—what can I say? You are a man of your word and you did say, after all, that you would give me a demonstration.

:)

Dennis:

It's a pity 'the ass' had no access to subtlety.

He wasn't the real Mad Hatter, you know. Anyone can stick a picture of him on their face.

Only Alice knows the real Mad Hatter...

Tea? ((:

Yes, well—what can I say? You are a man of your word and you did say, after all, that you would give me a demonstration.

no dilemma.
no hesitation
will co-operate

he's checking flight schedules.

has tongue will travel.

Leyla Shen wrote: to the meaningless clarity of nowhere—because that’s where he is!

Have to get in the last word, aye?

Absolutely not!

I'm quite happy for you to have the last word, on one condition: you tell me what it means!

I told you what I mean. Don't tell me you haven't noticed how the majority of folk cling to meaningless ideas about life/reality. I'm not asserting any theory about how this came about, it's origin or beginning, I'm just saying such inquiries are not only meaningless but are creating false conceptual boundaries then assuming a narrow view to try and answer these inquiries. This is based in negation of false imaginations, not asserting them.

I told you what I mean.

a means to an end.

Don't tell me you haven't noticed how the majority of folk cling to meaningless ideas about life/reality

ends in themselves.

I'm not asserting any theory about how this came about, it's origin or beginning,

a means to an end.

I'm just saying such inquiries are not only meaningless but are creating false conceptual boundaries then assuming a narrow view to try and answer these inquiries.

ends in themselves.

This is based in negation of false imaginations, not asserting them.

a means to an end.

Meaning.
motive and opportunity.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That the "essential nature of things" you are experiencing is another appearance. Just a biggie, that's all.

Exactly, only adding to the clarity of the point it seems. These are only moment to moment appearances. Uncontrolled, uninfluenced, constantly changing. Which includes all thoughts/concepts

Including the appearance of having moment to moment appearances! Meaning that there's no essential nature to any thing. Not even being "illusive" or "real". That's why they are called impermanent, for not having even one definite, absolute nature or property. Only causality remains essential, causality you can really know but not the things or their nature.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That's why they are called impermanent, for not having even one definite, absolute nature or property.

Save for impermanence.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That's why they are called impermanent, for not having even one definite, absolute nature or property.

Save for impermanence.

Impermanence just means not having any definite or absolute nature or property. It means causality: a timeless truth, not some measure of shortlivedness.

seeker uses 'impermanence' as a means to an end.

why get out of your chair because of impermanence.

to get out of your chair is meaningless because of impermanence.

impermanence is his raison'd'etre.

his oeuvre.

his ooh la la.

his no.1 with a bullet.

his absolute.
his atom.

Dennis Mahar wrote:to get out of your chair is meaningless because of impermanence.

I do probably everything you do, eat, sit, walk, sleep, get money and buy food, etc, etc. Mind telling me how any of that's different from what you do?

Dennis Mahar wrote:his absolute.
his atom.

Like causes/conditions?

The only thing wrong with what you say Dennis is that you're making these claims based on what is no from different what you're doing.

The same thing Diebert, for example, a comment about the the use of the word 'reality' then go on to use it and in other contexts.
Or 'that's why they are called impermanent', yet my use of the word is somehow an identity based in delusion.

The GF motif, "You're doing this wrong, but I'm not".
The amount of times this motif is expressed is astounding. No reason, no required reason, just that the other is doing something I'm not, any and all pointing this out ignored as if the writing was in invisible ink.

Dennis Mahar wrote:as a means to an end.

Dennis Mahar wrote:as a means to an end.

Dennis Mahar wrote:as a means to an end.

See what I mean, what are you on about?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I told you what I mean. Don't tell me you haven't noticed how the majority of folk cling to meaningless ideas about life/reality. I'm not asserting any theory about how this came about, it's origin or beginning, I'm just saying such inquiries are not only meaningless but are creating false conceptual boundaries then assuming a narrow view to try and answer these inquiries. This is based in negation of false imaginations, not asserting them.

Bzzt. WRONG! That is not what the last word means, so you don't get to have it.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That's why they are called impermanent, for not having even one definite, absolute nature or property.

Save for impermanence.

See? This is where even a modicum of appreciation for theory might be useful to a person.

There it is, the confession. Your supreme attachment to—shudder—concepts.

Since impermanence is not the concept impermanence, and what it is by definition is unbounded, how else can impermanence appear to you as bounded?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That's why they are called impermanent, for not having even one definite, absolute nature or property.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Except for the property of impermanence it seems.

Leyla Shen wrote:There it is, the confession.

I confess.

BTW guys, impermanence doesn't mean anything in itself, it's a reference, a name, for something you've -guess what -experienced.

Lol

Leyla Shen wrote:Lol

The irony

Do you know what a property is?