Can people change?

[Dennis Mahar]

"Be still and know I am God."

esoteric Tibetan schools, claiming access to Buddha mind,
report that the 'appearance', is merely projection all the way.
that it's been going on for 26 0r 260 trillion years (can't remember which number).
and ain't about to end any time soon.

I haven't experience of past lives,
have you?

Can the problem of imputation be addressed?
How 'tableness' can be imputed on a collection of pieces/parts that are not 'table'.
How 'carness' can be imputed on a gathering of parts that are not 'car'.
How 'atom' can be imputed on a gathering of parts that are not 'atom' (sub-atomic particles)
How 'self' can be imputed on a collection of parts that are not 'self'.

It looks like labels all the way down and all the way up.

For the life of me I can't claim ownership of any of the bits and pieces that go to make up what is considered to be 'me'.

That the only way 'I' can exist is by imputation or mental trick.
It's unsafe for me to conclude 'I' exist at all.
It is safe to conclude web exists.

I can see how Society cannot function unless citizens agree or go along with or are brainwashed into the idea of separate selves in order to regulate behaviour.
In that way each citizen is made to be responsible and answerable and regulated.
thereby creating a herd.

[Pam Seeback]

cliche.

machine doesn't have an off switch till death.

Dennis, you've been communicating with me for how long and you still think that when I bring forth the concept of stillness that I am talking about a thought off switch? That I am a Buddhist that ponders their past lives or a Christian that believes holiness belongs only to Jesus? Oy vay, man, have you just been pretending to communicate with me? I am curious, I am - how do you know "machine doesn't have an off switch till death?" Are you dead?

Okay, once more with meaning. Yeah, meaning. Remember my old signature? You must go through the mind to get beyond the mind? I know you are all about meaninglessness, but I tell you, that signature, along with wisdom words such as "be still and know I am God" are saying something meaningful, specifically, how to stop the turning wheel of one's subjective-objective imaginings/projections. Is this way of stopping one's turning wheel of their imaging a safe mental trick, which you state is the philosophy of Dennis? Trickery is not a word I would use, but since all concepts, even those that do not arouse an image are temporal in nature, I can 'see' a 'pointing to' fit.

So, how does one gradually turn off the thinking switch of their labeling objects according to their sense awareness? By gradually turning on the thinking switch of contemplating the nature of their infinite stillness. To begin labeling what their infinite stillness is, using preferred human words that best describe or suggest its qualities. To become wholly attentive to this one task, forsaking all others. Words such as righteous, pure, perfect, transcendent, all-encompassing, all-inclusive, spirit of life - words that do not arouse a material image-feeling, words that bring the mind to stillness and keep it there.

Of course, one cannot stay in this heavenly place of non-sense words, because while one remains in the turning wheel of their sentience, they need words of sense that relate to the non-sense words of the transcendent ideal. Words such as love, compassion, patience, and mercy, words that although exist in sentience, do not produce images of sense.

When one is in the sentient objective image-stillness of compassion or mercy or patience or love, material [relative dependent] images continue to emerge as they will wont to do, but since there is no web of association or roaming “I” present, they disappear as quickly as they appeared.

esoteric Tibetan schools, claiming access to Buddha mind,
report that the 'appearance', is merely projection all the way.
that it's been going on for 26 0r 260 trillion years (can't remember which number).
and ain't about to end any time soon.

Ask yourself what I believe are these very logical questions in relation to those who claim that the 'appearance' is merely projection all the way:

How can an appearance interpret an appearance? How can a projection interpret a projection? Would not reality go insane if this scenario was actually the truth of its core nature? Ill put it to you in practical terms. You label the object you are sitting on "chair." If your awareness appears and disappears as does the chair appear and disappear, if you were a perpetual 'shapeshifter' of appearing things, from what foundation of awareness would/could the appearing-disappearing "chair" be called forth? Check out this truth for yourself: your "I" wanders all over the place, but That which is aware of your wandering "I" does not move. Put another way, life is still, the spirit of life is not.

I am not aware that the Buddha ascribed to the concept of ultimate reality being one of perpetual projection. Did he not preach of the eight fold path, of which each spoke in the Dharma wheel begins with "right?" Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration? If one's awareness was always turning on appearance or always projecting the web of association, how could one find and come to know, the "right" path? Is not "right" in the way the Buddha uses "right" not the resting upon an idea of perfection [an ideal of omniety or Everything] so that this ideal may be realized?

Boom boom da da dada
Bompa bomp doo da dada

Now listen,
who is steppin' out,
I'm gonna turn around,
I'm gonna turn around twice,
and we'll do the Eagle Rock.

give me a concept and we'll do the Eagle Rock.

I'll give you a concept all right, but it ain't gonna be one that turns you around, not once, not twice, not even a half or a quarter turn. :-) If you and I be doin' the Eagle Rock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Rock_%28song%29, we be doin' it to the sound of the RIGHTeousness of the unmoving God whose spirit of sentience moves across the water of compassion-wisdom and when necessary of your account, not mine, across the dividing, albeit for-the-moment calming, water of reason.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, what I said was:

Thinkers are not always thinking.

Objects are not always being labeled.

I did not say thinkers stop thinking or objects are never labeled. Therefore,

"Be still and know I am God."

is an instruction of wisdom that brings one to experience, for themselves, the stillness of one's subject-less, object-less, awareness. At first, they may not be able to stand on this unmoving aspect of their consciousness but for a moment or two, but once 'tasted', one can no longer deny the truth of its existence and continue speaking of appearance and projection to be the absolute face of ultimate reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

'Be still and know I am God'

That's not enough for me.
I want the nitty gritty,
the details.

If I hear a great song,
I want to know what composer did.
I want the harmonic progression,
the scale used for the solo,
the rhythm pattern.

I want it exposed.
All of it.
I want it out there and understood completely.
The bits and pieces astonish me.

If it's all projection,
then it's a con job,
a confidence trick.
When people experience samadhi,
there's a spontaneous eruption of laughter,
arising unbidden,
non-conceptual, direct experience,
a sense of 'getting the cosmic joke'.
suffering constituting immersion in being the 'butt of a joke',
not getting the punch-line.

delusion being, falling for the party trick.

what's empty and meaningless is falling for the joke.
what's meaningful is getting it.
seeing the joke is astonishing.

doin' the Eagle Rock.

[Dennis Mahar]

When I look around me at Society or Herd,
what I discover,
is people immersed in a conversation,
or enrolled in a way of being,
or going along with a formula,
or attached to appearances,
or trying to project an appearance,
called,
Looking Good.

Looking Good is a way or track that is followed,
that gives rise to,
mini mansions,
Doir gowns,
boob jobs and tummy tucks,
mercedes benz.

That is understood to be an inauthentic way of being or in QRS speak, feminine.
Whatever, it's called out.
It's understood.
It's distinguished.
As trickery.
It's empty (causes/conditions).
it's meaningless.

We go another way Pam. (causes/conditions)
We can't fall for that party trick.

I get what you mean,
'Be still and know I am God'

I want the details,
Do you get what I mean?

I see jufa as digging the details.

[Bobo]

That the only way 'I' can exist is by imputation or mental trick.
It's unsafe for me to conclude 'I' exist at all.
It is safe to conclude web exists.

I can see how Society cannot function unless citizens agree or go along with or are brainwashed into the idea of separate selves in order to regulate behaviour.
In that way each citizen is made to be responsible and answerable and regulated.
thereby creating a herd.

Do you think that there's no idea of separate selves in saying that

he's got abandonment issues.
his solution is to abandon everybody else.
to get in first,
so he doesn't get abandoned.
cheap trick.

mudslinger

?

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes, I imputed that.
Of course I did.
In the face of countless imputations I've received from him.
I cracked under pressure.
I got into a fight.
I failed.
the possibility of Reason failed.
Are we done?
Happy?

[Blair]

Hey prince, do you think that genius is universal (in all things or all people)?

No.

[mental vagrant]

Hey prince, do you think that genius is universal (in all things or all people)?

No.

Turn on your TV, this is exacting a refutation for yourself.

[Pam Seeback]

I want the details,
Do you get what I mean?

I get what you mean, but what I also get is the double-minded stance you take of craving the details and feeling safe in their web, and then, declaring them empty and meaningless. This is why you and I struggled with one another when we first began communicating; you were free and easy with your subjective-objective web of 'Pam,' as if your knowledge of emptiness and meaninglessness made saying these things 'okay.' It's no different than calling me a cry baby. You are not alone on this forum in taking what I believe is a position of ignorance and duplicity, that is, declaring the inherent emptiness of form, A = A, and then, using form to make statements that are anything but empty and meaningless in their intent.

Hatred and anger and mocking is routinely expressed on GF, exposing to me that although there is a claim of enlightenment by most on this board, that few are actually enlightened in the way that I define enlightenment. How can someone claim to BE enlightened with the wisdom of A = A, unless their words reflect this wisdom? What comes to mind is the school yard bully whacking a kid on the head and when he cries, saying to him, get over it kid, don'tya know that your head and my hand are empty and meaningless? To me, the enlightened position is "I want to whack that kid on the head, but since I know that his head and my hand are but dead effects of my belief that Infinity can hate Itself, I will rest on wisdom and not on ignorance and "be a passerby." Cause no harm is not a cliche, it is a saying born of wisdom of All Things Abide in One's Pure Awareness of Self.

This also gets to the heart of why a reasoning mind is only a partially enlightened mind, and sometimes, a "dangerous" partially enlightened mind. Any view can be reasoned; even Hitler had his reasons for killing six million people.

I see jufa as digging the details.

As for jufa, as I comprehend his writing, his details flow from a stance taken that all things originate in spirit and return to spirit and coming from this comprehension, he does not take thought to be personal, nor does he make thought personal.

[jufa]

I see jufa as digging the details.

I am the dancer. I am the dancer dancing. I am the dancer dancing the dance. I am the dance.

I am the dancer [ I AM not who created the dance]. I am the producer [interpreted thinker of what I theorize the dance to mean]. I am not the Original thinker of the dance. Yet being the dancer dancing the dance, I become the thinker, thought, and objective interpreted projector of an activity that is a mystery which is over and above the thought interpretation by my finite mind.

The dance I produce is the production of the thought activity manifesting the object of my mind. I have now become the interpreter of the Originator Thinker's intent for creating the dance, even though I do not know what that intent nor purpose was. So who am I other than the dancer? Am I an emanation of the Original Thinker? Is that who I am? Am I the I who gave an imaginary analysis of the dance I became consciously aware? Or just a thought form unrecognizable which originally emanated from the Consciousness of Cause absent volume, breadth, or depth while I lived in my finite mind of the dancer I am.

My finite mind does not know why the dance was formed. I the interpreter of the Original Thinker's thoughts do not comprehend, do not know why I was formed as the dancer dancing the dance I am, or how I could emanate from the Original Thinker I AM when that I AM is beyond the Eye of my Comprehension?

Being I am the dancer which is the emanation of I AM, then there must be a cause of purpose to produce the illusion of that which is believed to be finite because of visual effect, but is infinite by cause of Consciousness. Sure I can say I am the dancer dancing the dance, therefore I am the dance I am dancing. But this cannot qualify as a true statement because the dancer has not manifested the cause of substance which provides the thought essence of awareness of the dance, nor the ability to dance, no less allow the dancer to say in absoluteness what the dancer, dancing, and the dance is.

Certainly rhythmical movement is not a qualification for the dancer to claim I am the dancer dancing the dance. Nor does the thought of awareness of dancing make for that which produce true verification and cause which makes what is alleged to be what is claimed. There is rhythmic movement in branches and leaves of trees when swaggering winds blow and move through them. But If I am unaware of trees swaying the rhythm of the wind, I cannot be the wind nor trees.

Neither does being the thinker interpreting the thought of being the dancer make the dancer, and dance the truth of Conscious' purpose. I receive thought because I am a vehicle by which Consciousness highway through, but not in observable form of that Consciousness I AM.

The thinker gives his life to the thought, the thoughts gives that life to the object of the thinker interpreted vision. Thus making the object of the thought the subject matter of Consciousness. Does this make the I AM the Original Thinker who gives the thought existence because of Its life?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Dennis Mahar]

Heidegger and Arendt rented Halls throughout Europe in the late '20's and confronted audiences caught up in their 'conceptual paradigm'.
Their social conditioning.

The Heideggarian distinction:
on the field
and in the stands
was put to work.

The approach was to confront directly, much like Zen, in order to produce the direct experience,
where the social conditioning was seen to be the social conditioning,
nothing more and nothing less.
empty (conditional)
meaningless in itself ( only a paradigm, only a possibility)

People are 'on the field',
as Jufa puts it,
dancing the social conditioning,
oblivious to the fact,
they have fallen into a dance move.

It's the situation.

Direct confrontation is not bullying.
Its a conversation to snap out of the dance.
It gets the person the experience of 'in the stand' noticing their very own dancing (on the field) as a 'fitting in' with the general dancing.

It's an approach.

Human being conceptualises,
concepts are 'sexy',
doin' the eagle rock.

the brain is always/already turned on, 'constructing reality' by way of concepts which get lived in to.
meaning making.

There's only dancing.
It's a mistake to identify as I'm dancing.
there is no 'I'.

[Bobo]

Yes, I imputed that.
Of course I did.
In the face of countless imputations I've received from him.
I cracked under pressure.
I got into a fight.
I failed.
the possibility of Reason failed.
Are we done?
Happy?

I'm saying that the very possibility of reason fails when you deny a self (difference, really). Trickies will use 'ultimately' or a variant before self-denying.

[Bobo]

Hey prince, do you think that genius is universal (in all things or all people)?

No.

Do hormones have a function in it, do you think it does?

[Dennis Mahar]

Does Reasoning need an 'I'.?
Do you own reasoning?

[Bobo]

Intentionality asserts an I. Whitout an I you should starve or terminate the I (now a contradiction) in order to be rational.

[jufa]

There's only dancing.
It's a mistake to identify as I'm dancing.
there is no 'I'.

To fragmentalize and say there is no I is saying there is no dance to be dancing for there is no object. To say I am the dancer. I am the dancer dancing. I am the dancer dancing the dance. I am the dance does not identify an object nor I. It demonstrates a movement of consciousness which incorporates the thinker, the thought, and the object, thus voiding all subjective reasoning and logic.

This means there is no logic for ones resistance of their indoctrinated living. And by the same token it means there is no logic for one not to resist. Why? Living justifies it own existence. Either avenue one takes is without meaning to the moving Principle Substance, Pattern Essence, nor the law of the Spirit of life.

One, whether they are a Hitler or a Jesus receive according to their thinking their just reward of their thought demonstration whole, perfect, complete and pure

Think as you will and receive what is yours.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[ForbidenRea]

People change.

[Dennis Mahar]

Intentionality asserts an I.

Intentionality imputes an I.
Do you own intentionality?
what is it anyway?
the idea of projector projecting?

[Alex Jacob]

movingalways wrote: "Hatred and anger and mocking is routinely expressed on GF, exposing to me that although there is a claim of enlightenment by most on this board, that few are actually enlightened in the way that I define enlightenment. How can someone claim to BE enlightened with the wisdom of A = A, unless their words reflect this wisdom? What comes to mind is the school yard bully whacking a kid on the head and when he cries, saying to him, get over it kid, don'tya know that your head and my hand are empty and meaningless? To me, the enlightened position is "I want to whack that kid on the head, but since I know that his head and my hand are but dead effects of my belief that Infinity can hate Itself, I will rest on wisdom and not on ignorance and "be a passerby." Cause no harm is not a cliche, it is a saying born of wisdom of All Things Abide in One's Pure Awareness of Self".

Please don't think I have a guilty conscience, or that I have much more desire to participate in these sorts of inane, vain, endlessly circular conversations that spin and spin and spin around in...concerns more suited to children. Still, this warrants comment for a few reasons.

One, I utterly and *absolutely* (heh heh) reject the term 'enlightenment' and all its derivatives. It is a term that conceals even as it presents, rather blatently, the worst sort of human conceit. Each and every even somewhat smart person should see the flaw(s) inherant in the term and its use and should stop using it. The 'Founders' of GF give concrete and nearly perfect evidence as to why this term is a DEAD END ROAD. One cannot be too adamant on this point. It is a vague and a vain term, an import from the East, and is infected with far too much baggage to ever be salvaged. Also, anyone who speaks of their 'enlightenment' is AUTOMATICALLY disqualified, and since mentioning and employing the term IS IN FACT a sort of crowing about one's own 'enlightenment' (*guffaw! sputter! snicker! bwaaahaaahaaa!*), the term can be understood as being employed by con-artists. Con-artistry is a foul sport and it should not be condoned...

There are only 1 or 2 people I have observed here who, as I see it, use terms that could be construed as 'hatred', or whose terms are filled with this animus. The advantage is that they post so infrequently, and say only innane, childish things, that they hardly count.

Moving right along...

Anger and mocking, now those are horses of a different color. First, to have 'genuine anger' (Bob's recent quote comes to mind) is actually---if you'll permit me the word---'divine'. Mocking is related to irony is related to critique and criticism, and if y'all haven't realized it yet: criticism is divine. To see, to analyse, to compare, to weigh, to measure, to respond: these are all traits that characterize what can be described as the very best in man. Now, softies, wimps, fakes, blusterers, the puffed-up, they hate to be mocked and they simply can't deal with irony or sarcasm, so what do they do? They naturally villify it! But it is that Swiftian acidity, and that Swiftian truth-telling, that can literally rock the foundations of despotisms! And since, here in these conversations we are in fact dealing with *thinking errors*, *puffed up fools*, *spiritual traps*, *conceptual knot-tyers*, and so many different levels of illusion and delusion, that the stakes are indeed high, very high indeed! One false step in life can and often does lead to years and years of lost time, tremendous pain (if ignorance does indeed produce pain), and so for this reason we must truly understand what the stakes are.

I could make an argument that we have to listen very, very carefully when that mocking laughter comes our way. Do you remember the scene in The Fall by Camus...on the bridge? We have to carefully listen to the ironical laughter and determine where, in fact, it comes from. And from that I would make an argument that if someone is mocking me (little old me!) I would do well to try to understand why, because at the end of all ironies...is the creator itself. There are certain kinds of laughter that if you follow them back...Well, I'll say no more. (And hope that much is implied).

Ya'll need to get in the habit, not of waiting for the kid to come along and wack your silly ass, but should learn to DO IT YOURSELVES! Yes! Self-wack! Wack yourself before chance and coincidence and 'random causation' do it. If you did, this forum would be infinitely more intelligent, infinitely more relevant, and infinitely more interesting...

Irony is divine!

[Dennis Mahar]

jufa,

To fragmentalize and say there is no I is saying there is no dance to be dancing for there is no object.

Not denying existence exists.
Not denying a sense of 'I'.

How it exists is the question.

Do 'I' own my birth?
Does 'I' own my death?
Does 'I' own my life?

I AM is acting as a reference point isn't it?
like 'big bang' acts as a reference point.

[jufa]

How it exists is the question.

Thought

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Dennis Mahar]

Thought

How does thought exist?

A thought is a label isn't it?
thoughting would be labelling wouldn't it?

[jufa]

Thought

How does thought exist?

A thought is a label isn't it?
thoughting would be labelling wouldn't it?

By attempting to identify beyond the line of identification

A thought is an activity

Only if thinking can be objectified

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Dennis Mahar]

By attempting to identify beyond the line of identification

a stab in the dark?

we can see I AM exists in a sentence.
exists in a conversation people have between each other.