GENIUS FORUMS

becomes what could be called Dieb's Ah's-and-Oh's model.:

O -> A -> B >- C -> B' -> A' -> O
From totality (O), the "error" is having a thing neceserally isolated and identified as impression (A). Then it needs "existence" because not everything needs adressing. Here existence also means "reality", something asking for a response, a question, a burning (B of burning). We come to doing a "right or wrong action" which looks like a choice (C), this is the response to the real issue (B). This works like an operator on B, or in other words reality changes (B moves on to B'). But even when doing the right thing, it's still seen as existence with unknowns and therefore error (A') and when let go we're back to square O.

Dennis Mahar wrote:How does one breakthru' to Buddhamind?

Dennis Mahar wrote:The main objection to the idea of a participatory universe stems from the belief that the mind is an accidental side effect of matter.
It is crucial to sort that out.

How do you sort out such a belief?

mindphuck

Diebert writes: Like we have no "mind", and there's only activity, to reach any "buddhamind", there's only buddha doing.

Pye wrote:

Diebert writes: Like we have no "mind", and there's only activity, to reach any "buddhamind", there's only buddha doing.

I am in favour of verbing all nouns like this. Perhaps there are no nouns at all - only verbs. So rather than 'thing' (i.e. mind), there is process (thinking). Rather than a 'state' (buddha-mind), there is kinesis (buddha-doing). Instead of 'being,' there is the always-coming-to-be (becoming). There are many insightful thoughts (thinking:)) that can come about from unloosing the thing-nature of many nouns and seeing them for the verbs of process/movement that they are.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The question is, are you somehow distinguishing between which sensations are dream-like and which are real?

Or are you simply distinguishing between what is crazy/weird/fleeting and what is "normal" life?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Waking life we call "real" because I think it normally provides way more connections, shifting and transforming inputs, reactions to actions and events which mean something to us, which connect through memory with what we know and dreams do not or to a way lesser degree, below a certain threshold of seriousness. Also memory functions possibly differently and dreams "fade" quickly. Like a stunning dream can be almost forgotten ten minutes later. You can feel its universe slipping away! I've always remembered dreams after waking up, rarely I cannot recall.

And yet, I had dreams, at least I think they were dreams which were more vivid, meaningful and connective than anything I remember ever having experienced. They are also being remembered like any other important event in my life. Perhaps it was closer to mystical experiences or visions but I do not know what those are exactly either. Dreams also have occasionally introduced ideas to my mind which were way harder to understand in any waking state. A bit like being high I suppose but it's rare though. So to me it's perfectly understandable to hesitate between the drawing of lines between dream and wake as some final demarcation line of the real.

The question always returns: what is meaningful to you? What hurts? What presses? Follow that and you'll find real.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The uncaused and unoriginated is the true self, clinging to the false self, what is experienced now, (Nothing more than a particular of eternal experience) is the cause of our identification with suffering, it is the start of accepting delusion as truth and leads to erroneous understanding at the most fundamental level "This is me, mind is caused by body" vs "This am I not, this body is a particular experience of mind".

Dennis writes:
Impermanence is the monster,
the deadset motherfracker,
where the grief is.

Taking that on,
accepting that,
gets one in the Spirit of things.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Bobo you just twisted the words to say body or mind is caused by eternal experience, what does that even mean?

Mind is, experience is eternal, body is a particular experience, experience goes on after death of body.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:True, in reality it is only the connections/memories we feel that create a sense of "real". Without those connections, with a more wakeful and impartial eye, that familiarity doesn't hold and that sense of "real" fades with it. What is meaningful is based on the present, it is always changing.

There is nothing that is the "real" but change and changing sensation.... What do you think, is the meaningful and real always changing for you?

Leading up to a decision-action-moment

   Cause & Effect

  A              A'
    A         A'
      A     A'
       B   B'
        B.B'
         c
         !