What's the purpose of discussing enlightenment/reality?

[Leyla Shen]

There are some minds that can't deal with reason. Any time they get close, they collapse like an abandoned mine shaft.

[ardy]

Diebert I enjoy your posts, but to hold this argument you need to explain what YOUR understanding is and not just a bunch of nuanced logical argument. This seems to me like a hide that you enjoy being behind.

Hold one a minute, you just claimed that here is no purpose in discussing enlightenment which naturally includes any understanding of it or path related to it. As long as you keep believing that "none can agree what is real and what is not" your statement that I'd need to explain my understanding is complete nonsense. Not to mention that I've been writing on this forum about this understanding for a long time now. But any discussion without "nuanced logical arguments" would be nonsensical as well: a complete and utter waste of your time. So what's it gonna be? Thought or senselessness?

BTW I have never claimed any indescribable 'breakthrough', I did explain what I experienced but to claim that as some indescribable breakthrough is nonsense. If you think that some reason, education and brains will get you there you are sadly mistaken. In fact both you and Kelly seem stuck in this logical mental merry-go-round.

But you did claim knowledge about enlightenment as being some mental breakthrough "that cannot be understood if you have not been there" and therefore, as result, impossible to describe? Because what's the point of describing anything if you already know it cannot be understood.

I'm not sure where you get your education and brain references from. This is all about common sense, simple reasoning capacity and the question if one is able to at least hold one argument straight without letting emotion, attachment and ignorance twist it in many self-serving corners. There's really no other reason to remain contributing on this forum, now that would be a waste of time indeed. What's left is trolling.

Diebert - I am not asking you about enlightenment just your understanding. That is the fundamental difference. You love your logic and I appreciate your abilities in this area and agree that I do not have your penchant for that tight brain thinking. I also understand you have been writing here a long time but one sentence is most probably enough to explain what your understanding is.

In terms of understanding enlightenment I am only quoting what I have read nothing more. I have NO direct knowledge of it, the same as you may have no knowledge of it either. Your road to trolling is confused and has me wondering what is going through your mind. To hold an argument without emotion is a hard task for 90% of the population as we are emotional animals yet you seem to expect that level of discussion on a web site for Christs Sake!

To show your level of attainment then one sentence Diebert, that is all, and I will (hopefully) recognise what you have experienced and leave you alone!

[Cahoot]

Logical mind constantly orders the perceptual world, which is a distinct human advantage for sustaining the life of the individual, whose life in turn sustains the species for the long run.

Conditioned habits also play their part in ordering the perceptual world, sometimes a big part. But once attachment to conditioned habits gets cut then the logical mind takes over and gets done what must be done. Without conditioned habits to nurture, not as much requires doing, fewer distractions. Awareness turns back on itself in mindfulness, logic navigates the details.

And as Henepola Gunaratana says, “Mindfulness, and only mindfulness, produces Enlightenment.”

[Dennis Mahar]

There are some minds that can't deal with reason. Any time they get close, they collapse like an abandoned mine shaft.

Cool.
Her metaphors work best.
He's a prick.

[Pam Seeback]

Logical mind constantly orders the perceptual world, which is a distinct human advantage for sustaining the life of the individual, whose life in turn sustains the species for the long run.

Conditioned habits also play their part in ordering the perceptual world, sometimes a big part. But once attachment to conditioned habits gets cut then the logical mind takes over and gets done what must be done. Without conditioned habits to nurture, not as much requires doing, fewer distractions. Awareness turns back on itself in mindfulness, logic navigates the details.

And as Henepola Gunaratana says, “Mindfulness, and only mindfulness, produces Enlightenment.”

Very clear statements re the role of logic. How would you describe the state of the mind between logical navigations?

[Dennis Mahar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I83nc2IlSKg[url][/url]

love for being.
there are no reasons.
you look for reasons to justify what happened to protect the future.

causality isn't linear.
a myriad array of causes are brought to bear.
welling up.

[Pam Seeback]

[Dennis Mahar]

Whatever shows up is 'event'.
miraculous.

the sheer audacity.

gotta be impressed.

how so impressed?

Who ya' gonna call?
Bliss generator for possibility?

[Cahoot]

“One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any
emotional or mental state. We have certain images of meditation. Meditation is
something done in quiet caves by tranquil people who move slowly. Those are training
conditions. They are set up to foster concentration and to learn the skill of mindfulness.
Once you have learned that skill, however, you can dispense with the training restrictions,
and you should. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even
need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You
can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the
midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness. If you
find your mind extremely active, then simply observe the nature and degree of that
activity. It is just a part of the passing show within.”

Henepola Gunaratana
Mindfulness In Plain English

boogie

[iamforhereithink]

If you find your mind extremely active, then simply observe the nature and degree of that activity. It is just a part of the passing show within.”

I believe that this faculty of being able to observe ones own mind activity while under extreme activity , under duress or even under lesser activity is not so common as may be anticipated , a lot of people don't appear to monitor their mind activity as consciously …with a conscience …as do somer others

In scientific terms or even non-scientific terms , what is it in ones consciousness that actually has that ability to step back and observe/act/react to its own minds activities ? which in itself suggests an entity or inhabitant in the human that is not mind or at least that is embedded in mind but still with separate distinction to that mind

It has to be what is referred too as the i-consciousness which is in the mind but not entirely of that mind , this is the energetic phenomena that science can't quite put in its jar and therefore science must still bow to a higher form of intelligence still undetected by it

[Dennis Mahar]

The head's on the shoulders and the head's in the midst of
mindfulness is a performance
an act
an activity

The imputing mind generates

[Cahoot]

If you find your mind extremely active, then simply observe the nature and degree of that activity. It is just a part of the passing show within.”

I believe that this faculty of being able to observe ones own mind activity while under extreme activity , under duress or even under lesser activity is not so common as may be anticipated , a lot of people don't appear to monitor their mind activity as consciously …with a conscience …as do somer others

In scientific terms or even non-scientific terms , what is it in ones consciousness that actually has that ability to step back and observe/act/react to its own minds activities ? which in itself suggests an entity or inhabitant in the human that is not mind or at least that is embedded in mind but still with separate distinction to that mind

It has to be what is referred too as the i-consciousness which is in the mind but not entirely of that mind , this is the energetic phenomena that science can't quite put in its jar and therefore science must still bow to a higher form of intelligence still undetected by it

Agreed.

Being mindful naturally includes awareness of being mindful, or presence of awareness.

When presence of awareness is perpetual and effortless then there is no doing, though things get done. "Effortless" ups the amperage so there is no act or activity in the doing sense. Action and activity become wu wei affairs.

[Pam Seeback]

“One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any
emotional or mental state. We have certain images of meditation. Meditation is
something done in quiet caves by tranquil people who move slowly. Those are training
conditions. They are set up to foster concentration and to learn the skill of mindfulness.
Once you have learned that skill, however, you can dispense with the training restrictions,
and you should. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even
need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You
can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the
midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness. If you
find your mind extremely active, then simply observe the nature and degree of that
activity. It is just a part of the passing show within.”

Henepola Gunaratana
Mindfulness In Plain English

I was not suggesting that mindfulness is dependent on a mental or emotional state but that one can be mindful of joy when being mindful of logic is not required.

[Cahoot]

Oh yes. Joy is the hum of the universe. The ever-present sound of turiya.

[ardy]

Oh yes. Joy is the hum of the universe. The ever-present sound of turiya.

Agree with this Cahoot. We did an exercise about 20 years ago where we meditated without the use of the mantra and then just dropped everything until there was nothing left. Then the teacher asked us what we felt. A faint bubbling joy from within was the thoughts of several of us. So if life is built on Joy and hope maybe it is just us that change that natural state?

[Dennis Mahar]

Being here in the midst of....

theme.

[Cahoot]

Sure. Sooner or later everyone dies to pettiness and the arrogance of harsh judgment. If sooner, one can experience peace in situations that were not peaceful before the dying. If later, one will have only perpetuated what was, before the dying.

[Dennis Mahar]

The imputing mind generates conditions upon a basis of designation.
What is the basis for designation?

To call up mindfulness, as always, the opposite must be called up for knowing.
which would be
restlessness?

What is the base for that?

[Dennis Mahar]

What we're talking about is 'who are you being?'.

Marx wrote profoundly about remorsefulness, not to be cute; from the heart of the matter,
From direct experience.
I reckon his political formula generated out of that basis of understanding.
In order to fix remorsefulness.

who are you being?
I reckon that was what he was addressing.

[Pam Seeback]

The imputing mind generates conditions upon a basis of designation.
What is the basis for designation?

To call up mindfulness, as always, the opposite must be called up for knowing.
which would be
restlessness?

What is the base for that?

The base for consciousness is contrast. Even in the deepest of meditation one is conscious of the contrast of bodily functions, especially that of breathing.

[Dennis Mahar]

Nietzsche and Heidegger condemned the stupidity of logic/categorical thinking that came to dominate thru Plato and Aristotle.
They went to the presocratics who spoke of ekstasis, of the phenomenal experience of pure being:

To be or stand outside oneself
a removal to elsewhere
a stand or a standoff of forces

it's the buddha's 'empty' phenomenal experience
mindfulness.

Heidegger's path of thinking is designed to generate ekstasis as is buddha's.

Heidegger attempts to show:
Being is Time

rather than Being in Time.

Being mindful is to know what time it is.
Being-toward-death.
Impermanence.
Anxious?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Mindfulness is clearly held in high-esteem, so to speak, for a reason, as it reveals. If one is actually mindful or has 'presence of awareness' it reveals many 'things', such as the "not-acting" mentioned, along with impermanence and unending existence.

Mindfulness/Logic reveals the arising of mental formations as subject to suffering and delusion. Even that repetitive song Dennis, "it's bliss, it's bliss, it's a wonderful day!", won't play forever.

[Pam Seeback]

Mindfulness is clearly held in high-esteem, so to speak, for a reason, as it reveals. If one is actually mindful or has 'presence of awareness' it reveals many 'things', such as the "not-acting" mentioned, along with impermanence and unending existence.

Mindfulness/Logic reveals the arising of mental formations as subject to suffering and delusion. Even that repetitive song Dennis, "it's bliss, it's bliss, it's a wonderful day!", won't play forever.

It's not that mental formations are subject to suffering and delusion, it's the deluded belief that mental formations are permanent and self-originating that causes suffering. Remove the delusion of permanence and selfhood, do mental formations disappear? No, Remove the delusion of permanence and selfhood, does suffering disappear? Yes.

Seeker, if I am remembering correctly, you're biologically quite young. How do you plan on remaining conscious beyond your biological youth without benefit of mental formations?

[Leyla Shen]

Remove the delusion of permanence and selfhood, do mental formations disappear? No, Remove the delusion of permanence and selfhood, does suffering disappear? Yes.

But the all-pervasive suffering of conditioned states without recognition of impermanence is impossible. It’s this very recognition that causes (egoistic) clinging. It abstractly encompasses ordinary (birth, ageing, illness and dying) suffering and suffering produced by change (suffering impermanence).

Selfhood, much like an apple, is therefore not in itself necessarily delusional, which means that the notion of removing selfhood as the end of the suffering of conditioned states is delusional.

[Leyla Shen]

Remorsefulness?

What are you talking about now, joyboy?