Women as emotional being :myth ?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby movingalways » Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:27 pm

Cathy Preston wrote:So you're back to death as the only peace. You have some kind of a god complex, imagining your sacrifice will end the suffering of all beings. Your desire is your own undoing.

dhammapada-347
Those who are lust-infatuated fall back into the swirling current (of samsara) like a spider on its self-spun web. This, too, the wise cut off. Without any longing, they abandon all suffering and renounce the world.


354. The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering.


359. Weeds are the bane of fields, desire is the bane of mankind. Therefore, what is offered to those free of desire yields abundant fruit.


Rather than remain in the impersonal realm of thought, questioning me or providing me with your analysis of the first discourse, you projected your analysis upon me as if it is the truth of me. You made your analysis personal, using scriptures to "back up" this projection. I never used the word desire, nor did I use the word sacrifice, nor did I use the word peace, and yet, there they are, as if I did.

Staying within the integrity of I am, I will analyse the scriptures you have put forth:

dhammapada-347
Those who are lust-infatuated fall back into the swirling current (of samsara) like a spider on its self-spun web. This, too, the wise cut off. Without any longing, they abandon all suffering and renounce the world.


There is no longing present in the abandonment of suffering. Note the Buddha said "in the abandonment of suffering", present tense. In the abandonment of suffering, there is awareness of suffering, is there not? How does one end something unless they are aware of the something?

354. The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering.


Again, note that the Buddha did not say that being craving-freed is to be suffering free, but rather, is that which vanquishes all suffering. Again, the use of present tense, again, how can there be vanquishing of suffering if one is not aware of the suffering that needs vanquishing? Can I untie my shoes if I am not aware of my tied shoes?

359. Weeds are the bane of fields, desire is the bane of mankind. Therefore, what is offered to those free of desire yields abundant fruit.


Again, how is one made free of desire if they are not aware of desire?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:02 am

Either you're still suffering or you're not.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby movingalways » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:09 am

Dennis: It's easy to see phenomena is empty,


Seeing that phenomena is empty ends desire for form. The ending of the material universe. Transformation.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby movingalways » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:18 am

Cathy Preston wrote:Either you're still suffering or you're not.


If I was not yet suffering to be moved beyond suffering, I could not speak of suffering. You avoided dealing with my observation that the Buddha spoke in the present tense of suffering's end. What is this suffering called that is both aware of suffering and of its being ended? Compassion.

If you are no longer suffering, how then can you speak with authority on suffering?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:20 am

#
If you suffer you have desire, simple as that. You have desire to end all suffering, which traps you in suffering. How can you speak of transformation when transformation hasn't occurred. Form = consciousness so what you desire is annihilation. The same thing that drives a drug addict drives you, avoidance of reality.
#
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:35 am

#
The ego would rather annihilate the world, rather than itself.
#
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby movingalways » Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:44 am

Cathy, how can you and I have a fruitful conversation when you keep telling me what you think I mean, rather than what you know? Time to end this circle dance.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:16 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:My understanding is that when Buddhism is stripped of beliefs what is left is emptiness, impermanence, nonself.


If you think Buddhism is about emptiness then you are mistaken. How can anyone describe emptiness?

2 truths concerning phenomena.
conventional reality where things are deemed to exist from their own side,
and,
the ultimate reality of phenomena,
that phenomena is causes/ conditions and lacks inherent existence and is empty from its own side.


Conventional reality is relativity. Ultimate reality is absoluteness. These two realities are the same - a thing's absolute nature is caused by all other things.

what they're talking about is form.
form is empty,
and empty is empty because empty can only exist where there is form.


Empty is empty because empty can only exist where there is empty - this is basically what you said, but it doesn't make sense to me. Form is emptiness, as you say, so emptiness must be form. The non-dual nature of things lies precisely in their dualism. Emptiness is neither present nor absent in form, and yet it is form.

Buddhism doesn't believe in a God or outside superpower overlooking proceedings which is generated by the the idea of the Absolute.


Again, I am not defining God in such a way, nor does the idea of the Absolute generate such definitions. People have been known to have used these words wisely.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cahoot » Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:22 am

Cathy Preston wrote:If you suffer you have desire, simple as that. You have desire to end all suffering, which traps you in suffering. How can you speak of transformation when transformation hasn't occurred. Form = consciousness so what you desire is annihilation. The same thing that drives a drug addict drives you, avoidance of reality.

Desires have distinctions.

Virtuous desire sets into motion the removal of what obscures the nature of mind. Virtuous desire is the intent of life. This subsumes all other desire, sucks away all the energy from other desires until it becomes the most important everything. This one desire must be fulfilled, it becomes a do or die kind of thing. All creativity, energy, contemplation, goes into fulfilling the imperative of this one desire, and in fact the intensity of this single focus is the motivating force behind every single conscious, deliberate movement of daily living.

Sooner or later, this last desire is fulfilled.

Reference this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6956
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:52 am

Pam,
Seeing that phenomena is empty ends desire for form. The ending of the material universe. Transformation.


That's my understanding.
The cognition that the material universe (form) is impermanent, lacks its own essence, and is a play of causality.
therefore grasping at form as a way to guarantee a sustainable source of pleasure is erroneous and is the suffering.

nevertheless I exist.
the palpable experience of Being.
An enlightened Being is awake to the nature of form. (transformation).

So, what we've got so far is Being and emptiness.

Sartre wrote a book called 'Being and Nothingness' which I haven't read but I suppose he was trying to impart the same reasoning.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:04 am

jup,
ultimate reality refers to the ultimate reality of form.
form exists but it lacks its own essence.

no thing is the same (duality)
each thing is carried in its 'own' causes/conditions.

no thing is different in that each thing is of causes/conditions. (nonduality).

not the same, not different.

the age old questions that required an answer were based on the axioms,
existence exists and I exist.

the answer is form lacks inherent existence.
that leaves Being.

the possibility that Pam engages by the look of it, which many others attest to is:

'God' conceived of Being and emptiness.

that would constitute an 'Absolute' or 'All'.
or what is showing up in each and every moment is 'God/Being/Emptiness' as synthesis.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:20 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:Buddhism doesn't believe in a God or outside superpower overlooking proceedings which is generated by the the idea of the Absolute.
ight
It's easy to see phenomena is empty,
God requires a leap of faith or inference.

for Dignaga and Dharmakirti to claim emptiness to be insufficient and for them to realise that to proclaim things as 'lordly' is an exercise in inference,
indicates the general agreement that emptiness refers to the ultimate reality of form and is not talking about absolute existence.


Cause and effect is it's own superpower. The idea of the Absolute or God is what helps me to understand that unconditioned existence is completely impossible, that everything is empty is necessity, the realization of this truth causes one to see the perfection of the construct, in light of this perfection to imagine anything other than immediate experience is in itself limiting.

Why are you making a distinction between the material world and something else? Everything occurs in mind, what you call the material world is simply outside your reference point which is purely conditional. The only thing that's formless is the nature of your own mind.

Cahoot virtuous desire is the desire for truth, once the truth is realized (I am nothing) desire ends.
#
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cahoot » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:26 am

Cathy Preston wrote:Cahoot virtuous desire is the desire for truth, once the truth is realized (I am nothing) desire ends.

With the intent of life, the desire for truth exists within the context of compassion and ahimsa.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:05 am

Cahoot wrote:
Cathy Preston wrote:Cahoot virtuous desire is the desire for truth, once the truth is realized (I am nothing) desire ends.

With the intent of life, the desire for truth exists within the context of compassion and ahimsa.


All that is needed is a clear mind unclouded by the delusions of ego. Until you realize that suffering has a purpose you mistakenly believe that the nature of the Universe is hostile, and must be moderated by man with intent, it is only with a clear mind (not deluded by ego) that one understands the nature of the Universe is life, and its ego that intent moderates.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cahoot » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:26 am

Cathy Preston wrote:
Cahoot wrote:
Cathy Preston wrote:Cahoot virtuous desire is the desire for truth, once the truth is realized (I am nothing) desire ends.

With the intent of life, the desire for truth exists within the context of compassion and ahimsa.


All that is needed is a clear mind unclouded by the delusions of ego. Until you realize that suffering has a purpose you mistakenly believe that the nature of the Universe is hostile, and must be moderated by man with intent, it is only with a clear mind (not deluded by ego) that one understands the nature of the Universe is life, and its ego that intent moderates.

Without intent of life, delusion obscures truth. ;)
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:54 am

All that is needed is a clear mind unclouded by the delusions of ego. Until you realize that suffering has a purpose you mistakenly believe that the nature of the Universe is hostile, and must be moderated by man with intent, it is only with a clear mind (not deluded by ego) that one understands the nature of the Universe is life, and its ego that intent moderates.



that reads like an advertising brochure and as an input into a curriculum of education for realising emptiness is useless.
distinctions are necessary.
that's why 2 truths are distinguished.
in that way nihilism is avoided and essentialism is avoided.

on the age old questions,
existence exists and I exist,
the answer is the investigation as to how it exists.
neither can be denied.

we know form is empty and empty is empty.
we are still left with Being.

The problem with Being is that it too is causes/conditions.
otherwise you couldn't have enlightened Being and suffering Being.
you couldn't experience joy of being or lightness of being.
nirvana and samsara are conditional.

the implication is the existence of a primordial essence before Being and Emptiness.

It's that domain Nagarjuna and Lao Tzu recommend as can't be spoken of.
To speak of it is to thingify it,
to assign characteristics and properties to it.
if you did that you would be giving it form.

ineffable silence, in the presence of, in which no assertion can be made.
Nagarjuna's logic pattern, the tetralemma.

Religions thingify primordial essence into a personality with a purpose and fight unnecessarily over the rightness or wrongness of each others thingy, like a pissing contest.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:02 pm

Cahoot wrote:Without intent of life, delusion obscures truth. ;)



Ok tell me exactly what your intent of life is please.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:23 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Religions thingify primordial essence into a personality with a purpose and fight unnecessarily over the rightness or wrongness of each others thingy, like a pissing contest.


Yes religions clearly have intent, that intent is used by man to moderate himself (ego) is clear, to live naturally is to live without intent, not because the Universe has it, but because without ego its completely unnecessary.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cathy Preston » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:46 pm

Dennis wrote:that reads like an advertising brochure and as an input into a curriculum of education for realising emptiness is useless.
distinctions are necessary.
that's why 2 truths are distinguished.
in that way nihilism is avoided and essentialism is avoided.


If enlightenment is caused and we need to distinguish between the enlightenment and ignorance as you say, the only logical thing to do is to recognize the purpose is in the cause, that is suffering. If there is no purpose in suffering (and the effect is completely random) there literally is no difference between enlightenment and ignorance.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Cahoot » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:55 pm

Cathy Preston wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Without intent of life, delusion obscures truth. ;)



Ok tell me exactly what your intent of life is please.

That body of yours will surely be dust someday. And yet you continue to feed it. Why? The intent of life.

Your eyes that read will turn to dust in time. And yet, you read. Why? Go on, say it. The intent of life.

You acknowledge each life form that passes, touching it in some way, with those soon-to-be-dust eyes, or perhaps only with a thought. But you do it. Why? You know exactly why.

: )
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby jupiviv » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:50 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:jup,
ultimate reality refers to the ultimate reality of form.
form exists but it lacks its own essence.


If you define form as "finite things", then finite things don't have any ultimate reality apart from their finitude, so they don't lack their own essence.

no thing is the same (duality)
each thing is carried in its 'own' causes/conditions.

no thing is different in that each thing is of causes/conditions. (nonduality).

not the same, not different.


Think of it this way:

A thing + everything else(duality) = Everything(non-duality.)

Or, Duality = Non-duality.

'God' conceived of Being and emptiness.


It's hard to understand what you mean by this unless you define what you mean by "God", "being" etc.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby movingalways » Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:13 am

Cahoot: The intent of life, acknowledging each life form that passes, touching it in some way.


You deserve a hug for this one. Intent of gratitude for touch on mind and heart. A rare touch indeed. :-)
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:20 am

It's hard to understand what you mean by this unless you define what you mean by "God", "being" etc.


our Being, in the heideggarian sense roughly translates to our comportment.
our comportment in-the-world translates as representative of our degree of enlightenment or where we're at.
sometimes we are 'on the court' reacting thoughtlessly to 'what's happening'.
sometimes we are 'in the stand' reflecting, reprising 'what happened' to glean some wisdom in order to get back on the court to experience a playing of a higher order.
our Being is what we care about.
a Human Being of a more enlightened stature recognises caring about the Being of others generates the conditions for enhancing the future of his/her own being, in that way the more enlightened Being has recognised emptiness (causes/conditions).

Granting the Beingness of others to themselves as their own Being recognises each is parceled up in their own particular continuum.

as the Buddha said, recognising emptiness brings out higher order qualities in Human Being and that was his ambition.

Our Being is influential in-the world and influenced by participation in the world.
therefore it is conditional and changeable.

whatever is conditional and changeable has no absolute existence and is relative.

It is that kind of reasoning that points to, infers, or engenders the strong implication of 'God'.

We could say the All comprises,
God, Being, emptiness.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:51 am

Cathy,
If enlightenment is caused and we need to distinguish between the enlightenment and ignorance as you say, the only logical thing to do is to recognize the purpose is in the cause, that is suffering. If there is no purpose in suffering (and the effect is completely random) there literally is no difference between enlightenment and ignorance.



I know 'our being' is imputed, nevertheless it is our experience.
that's why 2 truths are distinguished.
we can't deny existence exists and I exist.
ultimately 'our being' is empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.
nevertheless 'our being' is what matters to us.
that's how we are caused to be.

In the situation, enlightenment and ignorance are incredibly important in terms of the experience of pleasure and pain.

enlightenment is tantamount to having all the viewpoints understood and how each plays out for the experience of human being for that is our form for the time being.

if we can infer an absolute viewpoint or Cosmic Mind,
or what it looks like from the perspective of an absolute,
a metaphor from Zen suffices,

evoke a piece of brocade, embroidered silk material of gold or silver. this material presents 2 faces, its right side and reverse side, which are totally different. it symbolises manifestation presenting its right side to God and and its reverse side to mankind.
Its right side is splendour and the reverse side is made of threads disposed in an apparently chaotic fashion. In different places, the threads present ravishing forms and in other places, frightening forms,
this is where the contrasting chaos is striking, from the torture of the sadist to the saint in service to others.

In terms of philosophy which involves the 5 branches of ontology, epistemology, politics, ethics and aesthetics.

ontology means God/Being/Emptiness in synthesis
epistemology or how it exists means all things lack inherent existence.
politics is to act for the benefit of all beings.
ethics is acting truthfully as a stand in ones own truth.
aesthetics is not producing trinkets, rather is concerned with one's comportment in the world,
an eye to 'who you are being'.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Postby jupiviv » Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:13 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:our Being, in the heideggarian sense roughly translates to our comportment.
our comportment in-the-world translates as representative of our degree of enlightenment or where we're at.
sometimes we are 'on the court' reacting thoughtlessly to 'what's happening'.
sometimes we are 'in the stand' reflecting, reprising 'what happened' to glean some wisdom in order to get back on the court to experience a playing of a higher order.
our Being is what we care about.
a Human Being of a more enlightened stature recognises caring about the Being of others generates the conditions for enhancing the future of his/her own being, in that way the more enlightened Being has recognised emptiness (causes/conditions).


Sorry man you've lost me. Can you explain what "Being" is without all the academic philosophic mumbo jumbo?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests