The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I rephrased and shortened my above comment. I think I've made the points more clear in doing so, and it should also be easier to respond to for whenever you feel up for it. Me too, thanks.

[Pam Seeback]

I appreciate the pruning, it helped.

I acknowledge that the only metaphysical absolute truth that can be verified by both reasoning and concrete experience is that of impermanence. Form is distinguished/analyzed for the moment only. What I would like to examine then if you are willing is how the realization of impermanence effects consciousness, starting with but not exclusive to your proposed "ground" or "axis" of context, action, purpose and ambition. Since ultimately none of these things are absolute/enduring, upon what authority do you declare them to be necessary (implying absolute, see point #2 below for possible context).

A few thoughts regarding the possible effects of impermanence realization on consciousness for possible discussion from the perspective of the solitary thinking experience and the social or communal thinking experience:

1. Fear of "no ground" to the possible extent of madness.
2. Fear, then acceptance of "no ground" leading to the conscious invention/creation of a "personal" ground. Within this effect I include individual "ground" creations such as reasoning, bliss, transfiguration, release, compassion, etc.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I acknowledge that the only metaphysical absolute truth that can be verified by both reasoning and concrete experience is that of impermanence. Form is distinguished/analyzed for the moment only.

And that very process of form being distinguished/analyzed is itself form, appearance, impermanence. Also, I wouldn't say that other truths cannot be verified or certain, just that they are only ever themselves aspects of impermanence.

What I would like to examine then if you are willing is how the realization of impermanence effects consciousness, starting with but not exclusive to your proposed "ground" or "axis" of context, action, purpose and ambition. Since ultimately none of these things are absolute/enduring, upon what authority do you declare them to be necessary.

The effects of the realization of impermanence on consciousness are likely never complete in any instant, in the sense that one might recognize impermanence and at first only 'know it' in relation to one aspect of reality, for example, thought. At least it is true in my experience that it is a gradual process of 'letting go' or not-clinging. At the start of that realization there may be a lot of emotion and resistance, or even fear as you mentioned. Eventually I would say that one should even be rid of world views such as "empty" or "meaningless". One comes to know impermanence as all-encompassing until one clearly understands the subtly implied meaning behind asking these 'zennish' questions in mass: "Where is duality? Where is meditation, pleasure, prosperity or discrimination? Where is sleeping, dreaming, fear? Where is close or far? Where is life and death? Where is the world and worldly relations?"

It is only when one has these understandings that I propose the necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition. Before wisdom, when one is deeply 'immersed' in a world of belief and clinging, desire or ambition can be very dangerous and they almost always create suffering. The only thing one ought to do in this case is to attain wisdom.

The reason or the 'authority' under which I declare it is necessary, is simply that of the reality of the human condition, and it is the human condition to which I refer in this thread. A condition which many- perhaps when coming to realize impermanence- tend to attempt to deny or abandon in some way. This often occurs because of the ignorance of idolization, which leads one to cling to the works of some historical figure, such as the Buddha, and then try to interpret the wording or intention and put it into action, as opposed to discovering what is true in one's own experience through independent contemplation. It's that self denial which I disagree with, for it is the 'human' or the temporary who is engaging in that denial. The temporary is all that there is, it is not something to be ignored or dismissed, instead one just needs to know the reality of it.

When one has recognized that the temporary condition is all that there is, this is where the wisdom of causation, and even conventional wisdom, becomes extremely relevant- so as to be free of suffering. As you mentioned, here is where the "conscious invention/creation of a "personal" ground. Within this effect I include individual "ground" creations such as reasoning, bliss, transfiguration, release, compassion, etc" comes into play. But let's remember to be cautious of words like "invention/creation". There are "two halves to the same coin" so to speak: there is the ultimate truth that there is no creation, no decision, no free will, because there is ultimately no decider, no one willing, and no creator. Yet it is not a truth which is divorced from or contradicts the very real truth of the temporary condition of being, and the (impermanent) reality of the decider, the one willing, the conscious inventor or creator.

That we put wisdom to work- even wisdom in relation to things like hate, resentment, jealousy, suffering and even desire or happiness- within the context of the temporary, is necessary.

What I mentioned is really about what one does 'after' wisdom, when one is free of bondage to the suffering causing immersion of 'dualism', or whatever else. Ignorance traps one and the only logical option when trapped is to become liberated. Once liberated, then other options arise.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: What I mentioned is really about what one does 'after' wisdom, when one is free of bondage to the suffering causing immersion of 'dualism', or whatever else. Ignorance traps one and the only logical option when trapped is to become liberated. Once liberated, then other options arise.

Give me an example of an option that would arise "after" wisdom of impermanence that would be free of clinging (to that option).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Give me an example of an option that would arise "after" wisdom of impermanence that would be free of clinging (to that option).

Anything at all really! Not sure how specific I should be but, going to travel? As you asked previously "why desire form when it comes freely?", the difference now is that we are recognizing desire itself as an aspect of form. As opposed to the delusion of some form-transcendent being who has intention or desire.

It is not worldly 'immersion' or differentiation, or distinction, or dualism, or selfhood, or possession, or desire, that are suffering, it is only belief in these- as if they were 'more' than they are- and thus bondage or clinging to them, which causes suffering.

Suffering itself really only exists in belief, by virtue of clinging/bondage.

We are talking about the same thing here really, you just seem to be saying that worldly 'immersion' must necessarily amount to suffering. Whereas I would say it is only through or 'after' wisdom that one can be liberated and live in the world. Or, since we can both enjoy the terminology: for one to be released from the 'dark side' of God (or hell), one must not simply avoid it, but it must disappear entirely! Even as a possibility or belief. There is no longer the possibility of 'going back' to delusion, even when in the world. Nothing to avoid.

[Pam Seeback]

Thanks Seeker for your openness, I do feel that I now have a better handle on your logic, one that, of course, I have no choice but to process in light of my own. Which, by extension, means you have no choice but to process mine in light of yours. Obviously, since I am continuing to correspond with you, I view my view as being more logical than yours. Should you prove me otherwise, I have no choice but to reconsider.

The idea of the law of the Spirit of life (note I did not posit a transcendent "being" which is why I view "self" as an erroneous concept) of infinite forms desiring one impermanent form over another impermanent form, to me, is the apex of illogic/delusion. And because such desire is the apex of illogic/delusion, suffering is the logical effect or outcome. Which leads me to the only necessary context of action, purpose and ambition I have which is to do the logical thing: stop the appearance of (impermanent) form.

I recognize that to most, stopping the appearance of form (stopping desire) seems a ludicrous thing to do. At times, I have myself doubted its sanity, however, when I fall into this doubt I always return to what is to me, the undeniable logic of non-appearance. Using the most often quoted terms on this forum to express the essence of this goal, appearance and desire for appearance (the visible) is the illogical feminine whereas the calling "her" home represents the logical masculine (the invisible). I am aware that "illogical" and "logical" are themselves, appearances, but I do not assign to them the same meaning. Logically, to me, when all is said and done, meaning is all we have, whatever that means. :-)

And to clarify, I do not project what "exists" or what "is" once the illogical feminine is "called home" for the logical reason that "She" is yet active in my consciousness. And given the infinite nature of the causality, I do not project anything "beyond" as in "separate from" or "higher than" or "outside of": to have this view is metaphysically illogical. Which is why when you asked me about the continuance of consciousness "after death" I stumbled in my answer.

Bottom line: I mean the form "desire" to mean "delusion" and "illogical".

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Obviously, since I am continuing to correspond with you, I view my view as being more logical than yours. Should you prove me otherwise, I have no choice but to reconsider.

I believe I can, as long as the conversation continues, because I understand your logic very well, and for a long time had the same wish.

The idea of the law of the Spirit of life (note I did not posit a transcendent "being" which is why I view "self" as an erroneous concept) of infinite forms desiring one impermanent form over another impermanent form, to me, is the apex of illogic/delusion. And because such desire is the apex of illogic/delusion, suffering is the logical effect or outcome. Which leads me to the only necessary context of action, purpose and ambition I have which is to do the logical thing: stop the appearance of (impermanent) form.

The first thing I want to point out is that these discussions are very subtle, and so it sometimes requires patience to properly communicate. For now I'm going to try to point out what I see as a metaphysical assumption you have made above. You said "of infinite forms desiring one impermanent form over another impermanent form". Here you have split impermanent form up, one impermanent form is the desire-er of other impermanent forms, you have implied a being as an impermanent form which has desire for other impermanent forms, and even if you have not implied a being, ultimately there is no difference between form and desire, so there is no such dualism. The point I'm making is that desire itself is an impermanent form, it is not the act of an impermanent form.

You describe it in causal terms, for example, desire causing suffering, yet you do so at an absolute or ultimate level. Ultimately, there is no causation. We only engage in the implication of relation and relationship, such relationship is in a sense, illusory. It is indefinite, temporary relationship. This is fine by itself, because we use causality so as to be free of suffering, but then you speak of stopping the appearance of impermanent form as if it would be an enduring accomplishment or the achievement of some permanent state. Is this not true? If it is true, then I believe I have sufficiently pointed out your contradiction, but I have only been able to do so because...

I recognize that to most, stopping the appearance of form (stopping desire) seems a ludicrous thing to do. At times, I have myself doubted its sanity, however, when I fall into this doubt I always return to what is to me, the undeniable logic of non-appearance.

It doesn't seem ludicrous to me, I fully understand it and have wished it in the past. Though I understand why others would see it as ludicrous, to even have the insight to understand what you're talking about probably requires many, many hours of contemplation. I assume that you relate this with the Buddha's descriptions of ''escape from the world of the born'' and that such release is only possible because of the ''unborn''?

The most important thing I want to point out is that, the fact that all of these insights are shared experiences, shows that we are not dealing with some different realms with different logic, but that there is only one true logic and one truth, this is something I assume we agree on.

Finally, whereas you see the ''unborn'' as being an enduring release from the world of impermanent form (the born), I say this is either a misinterpretation, mistranslated, or misapprehension on the writer's or Buddha's part, it's impossible to say. Yet logic clearly shows that such a view attempts to contradict the all-encompassing nature of impermanence. Perhaps in the hope of some permanent source of salvation. Instead, I would interpret the word "unborn" - if I am interpreting, as I am generally not so concerned with the writings of others, but am using this example primarily as a medium of communication- as a reference to existence without clinging. The world of the born without clinging is the unborn. (Clinging as ignorance of impermanence)

Without that ignorance- and that is an ignorance which one cannot 'go back' to- then by not clinging you shall not be 'born' into the world ever again, but impermanent form shall continue nevertheless. What does this mean? Perhaps this quote sheds some light: "The wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, and thus escapes the suffering."-Buddha

There is nothing other than reality, existence, appearance, there is no release from it, no matter who said it, not in the darkness, not after bodily death, never. Such ideas are a dream.

You can verify this for yourself, look at every morsel of knowledge, experience, consciousness, awareness, that you have ever been privy too, in all cases the 'default' position, the all-encompassing truth of existence as you know it, is that of the reality of impermanent appearance. This is the case even for the deepest meditation, deepest realization, or most sound logic, they are only manifestations of reality itself.

I believe that your view will change, and once it does I would say there are a number of other subtle things to straighten out.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: The first thing I want to point out is that these discussions are very subtle, and so it sometimes requires patience to properly communicate.

I am aware of their subtlety, no need to keep reminding me.

For now I'm going to try to point out what I see as a metaphysical assumption you have made above. You said "of infinite forms desiring one impermanent form over another impermanent form". Here you have split impermanent form up, one impermanent form is the desire-er of other impermanent forms, you have implied a being as an impermanent form which has desire for other impermanent forms, and even if you have not, ultimately, there is no difference between this form, and desire, and there is no such dualism. The point I'm making is that desire itself is an impermanent form, it is not the act of an impermanent form.

I fully comprehend that desire itself is an impermanent form. You have misunderstood the metaphysics of my story of the illogic of existence desiring one form over another form. For example, you spoke of desiring travel. Why travel and not badminton? Why badminton and not tennis? Why a Ford and not a Mazda? When I contemplate existence desiring its finite "parts", the four sages of orgasm (in this case, masturbation) come to mind: desire, anticipation, plateau, release. Desire travel. Anticipate travel. Enjoy travel. Travel ends. Desire badminton. Anticipate badminton. Enjoy badminton. Badminton ends. And again, I am not speaking of a being “doing these things”, I am referring to the appearance of all of the forms necessary for "travel" and "badminton" to happen. The dualism is not in the forming, the dualism is in the interjection of a self that "achieves" or "attains" or "accomplishes."

You speak of this in causal terms, for example, desire causing suffering, yet you do so at an absolute or ultimate level. Ultimately, there is no causation. We only engage in the implication of relation and relationship, such relationship is in a sense, illusory. It is indefinite, temporary relationship. There is ultimately no permanent relationship. Yet you speak of stopping the appearance of impermanent form as if it would be an enduring accomplishment or achieved state that lasts. Is this not true? If it is true, then I believe I have sufficiently pointed out your contradiction

Finishing the appearance of impermanent form to me is not an accomplishment or an achievement or a “state that lasts” (all of these terms are pompous and vain and illogical to me), rather finishing the appearance is a direction or movement of God or causality. As I see it, you have pointed out no contradictions.

, but I have only been able to do so because…

movingalways wrote:
I recognize that to most, stopping the appearance of form (stopping desire) seems a ludicrous thing to do. At times, I have myself doubted its sanity, however, when I fall into this doubt I always return to what is to me, the undeniable logic of non-appearance.

It doesn't seem ludicrous to me, I fully understand it and have wished it in the past.
You may have “wished” the finishing of appearance in the past, and I have been misinterpreted as “wishing” it as well, but “wishing” it is not my experience. See above for the explanation of my experience.
Though I understand why others would see it as ludicrous, to even have the insight to understand what you're talking about probably requires many, many hours of contemplation. I assume that you resonate this with the Buddha's descriptions of ''escape from the world of the born'' and that such release is only possible because of the ''unborn''?

The Buddha is not attributed as using the word “escape” when referring to the unborn, rather, he is attributed to using the word “emancipation.” They clearly do not have the same connotation or meaning. From the Nibbana sutra:

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

Becoming = desiring.

The most important thing I want to point out is that, the fact that all of these insights are shared experiences, shows that we are not dealing with some different realms with different logic, but that there is only one true logic and one truth, this is something I assume we agree on.

I am not speaking of different realms, I am speaking of different “experiences” or "tastes" of God or Existence. Logic is one of these “experiences.” I used the term metaphysical logic for emphasis, not to suggest a different realm.

Finally, whereas you see the ''unborn'' as being an enduring release from the world of impermanent form (the born), I say this is a misinterpretation, and logic clearly shows that such a view attempts to contradict the all-encompassing nature of impermanence. Perhaps in the hope of some permanent source of salvation. Instead, I would interpret the word "unborn" - if I am interpreting, as I am generally not so concerned with the writings of others, but am using this example primarily as a medium of communication- as a reference to existence without clinging. The world of the born without clinging is the unborn. (Clinging as ignorance of impermanence)

The all-encompassing nature of impermanence is true where there is consciousness of form (the born). I do not speak in terms of salvation, permanent or otherwise. Always of liberation or of “being finished” or “moving on.”

Without that ignorance- and that is an ignorance which one cannot 'go back' to- then you shall not cling and thus shall not be 'born' in the world of impermanent form ever again, but impermanent form shall continue nevertheless, there is nothing other than reality, existence, appearance, there is no release from it, not in the darkness, not after bodily death, never. Such ideas are a dream.

Since both you and I are currently conscious of form and of its impermanence, neither of us can state without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing other than this reality. Just as since both you and I are have not yet experienced bodily death, neither of us can conclude what happens at the moment of death.

I believe that your view will change, and once it does I would say there are a number of other subtle things to straighten out.

Hmmm, assumption of Seeker = teacher, Pam = student.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I fully comprehend that desire itself is an impermanent form. You have misunderstood the metaphysics of my story of the illogic of existence desiring one form over another form. For example, you spoke of desiring travel. Why travel and not badminton? Why badminton and not tennis? Why a Ford and not a Mazda? When I contemplate existence desiring its finite "parts", the four sages of orgasm (in this case, masturbation) come to mind: desire, anticipation, plateau, release. Desire travel. Anticipate travel. Enjoy travel. Travel ends. Desire badminton. Anticipate badminton. Enjoy badminton. Badminton ends. And again, I am not speaking of a being “doing these things”, I am referring to the appearance of all of the forms necessary for "travel" and "badminton" to happen. The dualism is not in the forming, the dualism is in the interjection of a self that "achieves" or "attains" or "accomplishes."

Probably just because badminton came up or came to mind first, who knows, what I'm saying is that desire, anticipation, enjoyment, none of these are suffering, and they do not necessarily cause suffering.

rather finishing the appearance is a direction or movement of God or causality.

Again, I also had this view, it wouldn't be wrong to say I saw the logic in it in almost every aspect of reality. In becoming I saw the futility of desire, it was as if it was an underlying truth which had always been there, urging its realization, that becoming is indeed desiring or having aversion(the same coin as desire) and thus suffering. That movement seemed the natural or logical direction.

The Buddha is not attributed as using the word “escape” when referring to the unborn, rather, he is attributed to using the word “emancipation.” They clearly do not have the same connotation or meaning. From the Nibbana sutra:

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

Becoming = desiring.

That was the quote I had in mind. I agree that becoming = desiring. Which suggests that you are speaking of the possibility of a "being finished" with becoming.

I used the term metaphysical logic for emphasis, not to suggest a different realm.

I wasn't suggesting that you were, I hadn't even noticed your use of the term. I was only pointing out a significant truth, that there is only 'one truth', so to speak. See below.

The all-encompassing nature of impermanence is true where there is consciousness of form (the born). I do not speak in terms of salvation, permanent or otherwise. Always of liberation or of “being finished” or “moving on.”

Since both you and I are currently conscious of form and of its impermanence, neither of us can state without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing other than this reality. Just as since both you and I are have not yet experienced bodily death, neither of us can conclude what happens at the moment of death.

There it is, the bridge between us which allows for you to reason a ''moving on'' or "being finished" with impermanent form, or consciousness of form, or appearances. I can in fact state without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing other than "this reality", and that bodily death will only see the continuation of consciousness of form. Either I am wrong or not- and this is what I meant when I pointed out the significance of there being one truth, we are in the same boat.

I believe that your view will change, and once it does I would say there are a number of other subtle things to straighten out.

Hmmm, assumption of Seeker = teacher, Pam = student.[/quote]

Perhaps the true vanity of our age or our culture is that there no longer exists the *insert whatever virtues are necessary here* to accept oneself to be a student or to be ignorant or to be wrong, and perhaps worse is the tendency - and this is probably a habit which has been beaten into us over and over as we have viewed ignorant people claim wisdom so many times- to propose that any person claiming so must be arrogant or pompous or vain.

What if you come to realize that you were in fact wrong on a wide variety of subjects, and that logic shows you that I was right and was speaking the truth? Would that not make me a teacher? I have always thanked and felt a great respect for those who have taken the time to beat delusion out of me. Let all such questions be resolved by truth and logic, I say.

So let me explain why there is no movement toward "being finished". I'll start with an example.

When told of a personal god, the naive mind might pray, and might believe that in some fashion those prayers were being answered. They might even 'see' God in everything in reality, it might appear that the entirety of life had the single purpose of revealing God to them. With their eyes closed they feel god, sense God, their thoughts reason God, their feelings point toward God, their experiences direct them to God. How can all of this happen then, since we know there is no such personal God? I'll tell you how, it is the power of the 'heart', of feeling and emotion, of conjecture, intuition and so on.

How does one avoid such blinding and powerful "seems to be's"? Only by way of undeniable logic, only by way of absolute truth and the criticism and eradication of that which is not absolute truth. At the moment, in regards to 'release', we are dealing with absolute truth, yet your view seems to eschew it.

Firstly, you have not become "finished" with impermanent form. The arising of impermanent appearance and consciousness of form is in fact the 'default position', it is the one we both know, the one we are both certain of. Thus your argument as to how I can not be sure beyond a "shadow of doubt that there is nothing other than this reality. Just as since both you and I are have not yet experienced bodily death, neither of us can conclude what happens at the moment of death." is a backwards and contradictory argument. The truth of reality that we know is that of life, of becoming, of form, of impermanence, of consciousness. That is absolute truth, it is 'proven' to you every morn and every night, during every dream, every sleep, every meditation. There is nothing at all to suggest a direction or movement toward ''being finished''. Perhaps because you view becoming/desiring as suffering and have heard of an emancipation, you have proposed that there must be a release, otherwise one cannot escape suffering? I had the same conclusion as you and I realized it to be a delusion, the same way I realized the description of some "source" from which all things spring from and return to, to be a delusion. The same way I recognized God or any higher power to be a delusion. The same way I recognized the idea of any permanent awareness beyond form to be a delusion. The same way I recognized "the unborn", as you describe it, to be a delusion, or misapprehension,or mistranslation.

There is, though, plenty to show that thoughts, concepts, imaginations, expectations, and feelings are indeed nothing more than impermanent appearances.

Can you not see the lack of logic in taking an impermanent aspect of form and try to using it to reason the "moving on" from consciousness of form? Basically, you are imagining the possibility, forgetting that it is only an imagination, an impermanent aspect of form. This is the same with the imagination of death as an end.

You must reason based on what is true in experience, not in imagination based 'possibility'. You have a belief in regard to absolute truth, that is where the fault is to be found. To know the absolute truth of reality as it is is to be free of all beliefs, all prejudices, all concepts and imaginations about it, thus all that remains is the reality right before you. And there is no "finish" before you.

The reality you know to be undeniable- that of impermanent appearance/consciousness- is never coming to an end, this is not a belief, it is based on a lack of belief in an end or a finish, as well as the simple recognition of the 'default' truth of reality as it is.

Otherwise, if I am wrong, provide reasoning which shows:

finishing the appearance is a direction or movement of God or causality

Though I would hope that before attempting to provide reasoning for such a position, you take into account my criticisms of it and contemplate it a little further, perhaps from the viewpoint of skepticism.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: There it is, the bridge between us which allows for you to reason a ''moving on'' or "being finished" with impermanent form, or consciousness of form, or appearances. I can in fact state without a shadow of doubt that there is nothing other than "this reality", and that bodily death will only see the continuation of consciousness of form. Either I am wrong or not- and this is what I meant when I pointed out the significance of there being one truth, we are in the same boat.

It is this certainty that you have that there is nothing other than this reality and that bodily death will only see the continuation of consciousness of form that I understand to be an application of absoluteness where it does not belong. I fail to see how by what I consider to be your application of absoluteness-in-all-worlds to consciousness of form we are in the same boat.

It is unlikely that either of us are going to move from our perceptions of consciousness of form, you declaring it absolute in all worlds and me declaring its absoluteness to extend only as its function in the world of relativism. Seems we're back where we started vis a vis our PM's.

[Pam Seeback]

You asked for my reasoning that counters yours of your view of the absolute-in-all-worlds nature of desire/consciousness of form which explains the process or way of ending the appearance:

The form of desire, the fuel of appearance of form is not always present, evidence of this truth is the mind at rest. While at rest, one can observe how desire for form comes into play and the effects of this coming in to play, which is to produce more desire and more play, the merry-go-round of "more."

Since it is desire that produces the playground of attachment to more desire, practicing mind at rest in concert with release of desire when it rises up (allowing it to dissipate or be absorbed into the breath) eventually brings one to the point where desire is an infrequent visitor. And to an awareness based on experience that at some point, as long one practices the release of desire, desire will come no more. To use Buddhist terms to help explain this process of ending desire, bringing desire to an end is nirvana wherein all that remains is the appearance of the body. And when bodily death comes, parinirvana comes, the end of the appearance of the body. Please understand that I realize these are concepts of the appearance. What must be realized is that there are concepts born of desire for play and there are concepts born without desire for play. I present the latter.

My reasoning of the ending of desire does include your reasoning that consciousness of form continues after bodily death. For one attached to desire, bodily death naturally results in the forming of another body. Which, if the time is ripe for enlightenment, this body-mind will question, from the perspective of the totality, the necessity and consequences of desire.

The ending of "more" does not end existence.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I fail to see how by what I consider to be your application of absoluteness-in-all-worlds to consciousness of form we are in the same boat.

We are in the same boat in the sense that we both know the reality of consciousness and that there is only 'one' truth of reality that we must share, whether we have the same perspective/understanding or not.



Thankyou for the more in-depth explanation of how you view the process. Your explanation resonates with me. Again, I was of this same view, at the time it seemed perfectly logical, the mind at rest, was at rest, the mind which was called back or born by way of 'desire' seemed to be the path of suffering or even the irritation or duty of the interruption of that restful darkness.

The first experience or realization of the mind at rest which is free of the desire for form and thus the consciousness of form, which could be described as a perfect rest from "selfhood" and the world, is simply beyond words. No self, no bodily feeling, no form, and perhaps even no thought, in such a rest there is the liberation of no belief in a self bound up in form which is endlessly subject to a cycle of duty/desire/suffering.

Do the above two paragraphs of explanation/communication resonate with your experience of what you refer to?

This is how it seemed to me, and I will try to explain how I later came to understand it in relation to truth by way of example- after I have received clarification that we are 'on the same page' regarding the truth of the experience of what you describe.

[Pam Seeback]

We are on the same page, but perhaps not in the same chapter. :-) I look forward to reading your example.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

We are on the same page, but perhaps not in the same chapter. :-)

Not really sure what you mean =p

Anyway, the example is that of the person who meditates and experiences/explores all kinds of previously unexplored 'modes' of consciousness. For example, he might be experiencing what appears to be broad daylight as if it were perfectly there, only to have that vision fade and recognize his eyes had been closed the whole time, to then conclude that he had been undergoing astral projection or some such. Or, he might experience some white light and feel a great bliss or pleasure, to then conclude he had an experience of God or the source of reality.

After having insight into these differing 'modes' of consciousness, logic clearly dictates that these are not actually distinguished 'states'. What I mean is that, the mind at rest is in fact just another 'mode' of consciousness, just another kind of consciousness of form- perhaps a blissful or restful one in which there seems to be no consciousness of form. You experience the mind at rest and the arising of the appearance of form/desire/suffering as an 'interruption' of that rest, to then conclude that such release is the 'greater' path. While I can not fault you on such a choice, or say that it is wrong, I can say that whatever darkness or rest there is, and whatever apparent wisdom there is in moving toward this 'being finished', is really just another case of preference and aversion in regard to form. It is not actually an end or even temporary cessation to the appearance of form, it is only another mode of consciousness, it is fundamentally 'the same boat'. Essentially what I am saying is that people have had experiences of every sort and make conclusions of every sort based on those experiences, whereas I came to realize that such differentiation, and whatever choice or conclusion comes forth from it, is a function of the temporary, not one of the absolute. Here I am, typing this thread, and I am fully aware of my capability to go rest, and experience whatever mode of consciousness. Whether that be the darkness of rest of the apparent cessation of form- which may even seem to an insight into the spirit or grant feelings of liberation from selfhood- or the experience of flying through space, in fact, I would not be surprised if I could even entirely eschew the appearance of the body for another mode of consciousness. It doesn't matter to me, and since my initial insights in regards to what you described, I have never once- even after thousands of hours of independent contemplation- even considered following any intention to 'explore' consciousness, or gain further insight or understanding of the mind at rest, why? Because every moment of existence, for both you and me, has been endlessly demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the nature of reality is impermanent 'consciousness' and appearance, this includes the mind at rest, which is something I think you are also partly aware of when you wrote "The ending of "more" does not end existence", if I am not mistaken. Though you seem to say so with the belief that the mind at rest is an emancipation from the world of form/desire/the born. No, it is only a preference, and a temporary one. After hearing or believing in one or another of the million conceptual structures to which you have been exposed, and seeing so many of them crumble knowing now that they were nothing other than imagination or delusion, how have you not yet concluded that there is nothing other than the blatant reality before you?

Some quotation may help convey the point:

"Even in practical life
the wise one remains happy.
Happy to sit,
happy to sleep,
happy to move about,
happy to speak,
happy to eat.

In short, the great soul
who has realized Truth
is free of desire, enjoyment and liberation.
In all of space and time he
is attached to nothing.

What remains for One
who is Consciousness itself,
who sees the non-existence
of a phenomenal world
created by the mere thought of a name?

Peace is natural for one
who knows for certain nothing exists,
who sees appearances are illusion,
to whom the inexpressible is apparent.

Rules of conduct, detachment,
renunciation, asceticism
what are these to one
who sees the unreality of things,
who is the Light of Awareness?

How can there be joy or sorrow,
bondage or liberation,
for one who perceives non-existence
and lights the infinite?"

You seem to believe in liberation by way of 'being finished' with desire/form/suffering (All of which you also seem to believe in as enduring or existing or as absolute).

Instead, recognizing the nature of thought and concept, I believe in nothing, and am liberated :-)

Thus I move on to the wisdom of the temporary. ( In regards to suffering, desire, thought, world, concept, and so forth. There is plenty of room for the mind at rest here too! Just no belief. Perhaps you have simply remained obscure or confused in regards to the context of your "movement".)

[Pam Seeback]

Thank you for your kindness as I believe you are addressing me from the position of caring about my spiritual well being.

movingalways wrote:
We are on the same page, but perhaps not in the same chapter. :-)

Not really sure what you mean =p

Hang onto the bolded concept "mean", its importance will be made clear below.

Seeker: Anyway, the example is that of the person who meditates and experiences/explores all kinds of previously unexplored 'modes' of consciousness. For example, he might be experiencing what appears to be broad daylight as if it were perfectly there, only to have that vision fade and recognize his eyes had been closed the whole time, to then conclude that he had been undergoing astral projection or some such. Or, he might experience some white light and feel a great bliss or pleasure, to then conclude he had an experience of God or the source of reality.

I have had these kinds of experiences, only a few, both heavenly and hellish, but I did not conclude I had experienced God or the source of reality. I am not saying I did not consider this possibility as a point of inquiry (the truth is I don't remember). During meditation, I was always conscious of being an observer which meant that my reasoning faculties remained intact. There was one particular experience of bliss-heavenly-lights under the influence of marijuana (two puffs of a joint) wherein I was acutely aware that to succumb to bliss without context of meaning was a fool's game. As for astral traveling, such an activity never appealed to me for the same reason. I would read accounts of people's travels but always come to the same conclusion that they were misguided, understanding that logically, wherever they “went” was but a mental experience, not an external reality.

After having insight into these differing 'modes' of consciousness, logic clearly dictates that these are not actually distinguished 'states'.

If by distinguished you mean an external consciousness, I concur.

After hearing or believing in one or another of the million conceptual structures to which you have been exposed, and seeing so many of them crumble knowing now that they were nothing other than imagination or delusion, how have you not yet concluded that there is nothing other than the blatant reality before you?

I will turn the question around and here is where the importance of the concept of “meaning” comes in. Have you not considered that after the million conceptual structures to which you have been exposed, and seeing so many of them crumble knowing now that they were nothing more than imagination and delusion, how have you not yet concluded that desire is just another one of these crumbling, deluded, imaginary structures? As I see it, the very thing you have concluded I am doing (making what is impermanent into what is permanent) is what you are doing. Remember, it was you, not I who used the term "necessary."

Which leads me to share an insight with you. In a previous post to Alex, I acknowledged that I had been using the term “absolute” incorrectly. I am fairly certain that my inability to settle on the meaning of absolute plays a part in muddying the waters between us, but what that experience did for me was to clarify that absolute truths, if they are to be had, are ultimately without value. Allow me to explain. The absolute truth we have been discussing for a while now of impermanence ultimately is no value because of the inherent need or principle (choose your term) of consciousness to make meaning or find a resting place of analysis or philosophy, aka a core belief. If either of us were truly being faithful to the “absolute truth” of impermanence, there would be no choosing of a necessary anything. So your use of the term “blatant reality” which I infer to imply the absolute truth of impermanence may be true from the perspective of a god who has no need of meaning, but for those of us who are concept dependent, without a ground of meaning we cannot function, we are lost, we are airheads. Perhaps this fits into the reasoning of the concept of "self" of which you speak. Perhaps "self" = meaning-maker, believer in these forms whatever they may be.

Some quotation may help convey the point:

"Even in practical life
the wise one remains happy.
Happy to sit,
happy to sleep,
happy to move about,
happy to speak,
happy to eat.

In short, the great soul
who has realized Truth
is free of desire, enjoyment and liberation.
In all of space and time he 
is attached to nothing.

What remains for One
who is Consciousness itself,
who sees the non-existence
of a phenomenal world
created by the mere thought of a name?

Peace is natural for one
who knows for certain nothing exists,
who sees appearances are illusion, 
to whom the inexpressible is apparent.

Rules of conduct, detachment,
renunciation, asceticism
what are these to one
who sees the unreality of things,
who is the Light of Awareness?

How can there be joy or sorrow,
bondage or liberation,
for one who perceives non-existence
and lights the infinite?

Do you see the irony that the happiness spoken of here which obviously has meaning for you is without desire and without liberation? This quote, to me, is an example of an "airhead" quote.

You seem to believe in liberation by way of 'being finished' with desire/form/suffering (All of which you also seem to believe in as enduring or existing or as absolute).

No more. It is my NOW ground of meaning. Perhaps it will change before my body pushes up daisies, perhaps not.

Instead, recognizing the nature of thought and concept, I believe in nothing, and am liberated :-)

As I see it, you believe in desire, context, purpose and ambition.

Thus I move on to the wisdom of the temporary. ( In regards to suffering, desire, thought, world, concept, and so forth. There is plenty of room for the mind at rest here too! Just no belief. Perhaps you have simply remained obscure or confused in regards to the context of your "movement".)

Where once I declared emphatically that I had no beliefs and that I had to find "the absolute", I had to know what is true in all possible worlds, now I believe that no such certainty is possible. Our discussion on impermanence brought me to this insight. I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

I contemplated believing, accepted it, then rejected it. I contemplated absolute, accepted it, then rejected it. I contemplated believing after contemplating absolute and for now, of my meaning identity of I am, accept it. As stated above, this may or may not change. Until or if change happens, I stand where I stand. As I see you standing where you stand. And Alex standing where Alex stands, etc.

Thanks for the ride John, the light of meaning may have a temporary ground, but from where i stand, in this world, I see no ceiling.

[jupiviv]

I have never once- even after thousands of hours of independent contemplation- even considered following any intention to 'explore' consciousness, or gain further insight or understanding of the mind at rest, why? Because every moment of existence, for both you and me, has been endlessly demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the nature of reality is impermanent 'consciousness' and appearance, this includes the mind at rest

If the nature of reality is "impermanent 'consciousness' and appearance" then we're lucky the human race hasn't collectively turned into iguanas in the last 10 seconds (which actually went by 10000 years ago). If every appearance demonstrates impermanence then reality itself is impermanence, so what then is the meaning of "impermanence"? Why should we not instead say that reality is permanent, and therefore all appearances as well?

Ears like the dumb, eyes like the blind.
In the empty sky in the dead of night, the whole body is lost.
Even Shariputra can't get a close look.
The clubfooted Persian has crossed at another ford.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If every appearance demonstrates impermanence then reality itself is impermanence, so what then is the meaning of "impermanence"? Why should we not instead say that reality is permanent, and therefore all appearances as well?

Because we are referring to appearances, it is those that are transient. Though I would agree that 'metaphysical permanence' -as opposed to some abstract concept of permanence which I cannot refute, such as the endless truth of impermanence- does not exist in any way, so the word only makes sense in relation to a concept, but one could say that about plenty of language! It is a mode of communication which has meaning because there is delusion. I would say that plenty of truth is actually elucidated by not believing in/refuting delusion. Perhaps like saying a person or reality is "Godless" when there was never a God to start, it still reveals something.

[Leyla Shen]

• Ears like the dumb, eyes like the blind.
  In the empty sky in the dead of night, the whole body is lost.
  Even Shariputra can't get a close look.
  The clubfooted Persian has crossed at another ford.

Oh, absolutely impeccable.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Thank you for your kindness as I believe you are addressing me from the position of caring about my spiritual well being.

That's partly a motivation, but there's much more to it than that.

I will turn the question around and here is where the importance of the concept of “meaning” comes in. Have you not considered that after the million conceptual structures to which you have been exposed, and seeing so many of them crumble knowing now that they were nothing more than imagination and delusion, how have you not yet concluded that desire is just another one of these crumbling, deluded, imaginary structures? As I see it, the very thing you have concluded I am doing (making what is impermanent into what is permanent) is what you are doing. Remember, it was you, not I who used the term "necessary."

Desire is nothing more than a word describing a feeling/form, and as I mentioned, it is completely temporary. Just as I could describe suffering, without turning it into something permanent. When I spoke of the necessary context I was speaking of the temporary human condition,(I admit I did not expect this situation) and you'll notice that you could also be said to have an ambition or purpose in regard to the 'movement' you describe. You are talking about a "being finished" with consciousness of form, with the implication that you would never return to consciousness of form, that is a 'permanent' implication based on nothing more than an impermanent concept. It is not the reality of your situation, as you are still clearly conscious of form.

I acknowledged that I had been using the term “absolute” incorrectly. I am fairly certain that my inability to settle on the meaning of absolute plays a part in muddying the waters between us, but what that experience did for me was to clarify that absolute truths, if they are to be had, are ultimately without value. Allow me to explain. The absolute truth we have been discussing for a while now of impermanence ultimately is no value because of the inherent need or principle (choose your term) of consciousness to make meaning or find a resting place of analysis or philosophy, aka a core belief. If either of us were truly being faithful to the “absolute truth” of impermanence, there would be no choosing of a necessary anything. So your use of the term “blatant reality” which I infer to imply the absolute truth of impermanence may be true from the perspective of a god who has no need of meaning, but for those of us who are concept dependent, without a ground of meaning we cannot function, we are lost, we are airheads. Perhaps this fits into the reasoning of the concept of "self" of which you speak. Perhaps "self" = meaning-maker, believer in these forms whatever they may be.

This is interesting, but I have to point out it seems that you're fluctuating fairly heavily in regard to your understanding of these terms and even how you view knowledge of the absolute. So as to avoid too much muddying or confusion, I'll reply to the above paragraph in sections.

The absolute truth we have been discussing for a while now of impermanence ultimately is no value because of the inherent need or principle (choose your term) of consciousness to make meaning or find a resting place of analysis or philosophy, aka a core belief.

This seems like too much of a blanket statement. Whenever we speak of meaning, grounding, analysis, or any beliefs, we are really only describing impermanent forms, feelings, ideas, concepts, and so on. If you realistically 'observe' the 'stream' of consciousness, there is no core belief or philosophy underlying every decision or moment. You also said it was the inherent need or principle of consciousness to make meaning, again implying consciousness is some creator or being with intention, or even speaking of it as an inventor of meaning (which is already such a broad and almost indefinable term). Caution is needed when traversing muddy waters. When I describe absolute truth I am only reflecting the nature of the reality of consciousness in language, I am not adding anything to it. For example, to say that there is what is referred to as 'thought', and that all thought is transient, is verifiable by each and everyone reading these words and is true at all times. It's simply a description of the nature of things, one does not have a single static thought that never disappears or changes. This is an example of how one can describe absolute truth with certainty. (I can imagine one rebuttal to this statement, which I will address and show to be nonsensical). I am taking caution to clearly distinguish between the very few absolute truths that can be stated, as well as to apply them to any related topic. I've made clear that almost everything else I've spoken of is concerned with temporary/transient wisdom, not absolute.

If either of us were truly being faithful to the “absolute truth” of impermanence, there would be no choosing of a necessary anything. So your use of the term “blatant reality” which I infer to imply the absolute truth of impermanence may be true from the perspective of a god who has no need of meaning, but for those of us who are concept dependent, without a ground of meaning we cannot function, we are lost, we are airheads. Perhaps this fits into the reasoning of the concept of "self" of which you speak. Perhaps "self" = meaning-maker, believer in these forms whatever they may be.

The first sentence seems like a conclusion based on conjecture. It is not a matter of being 'faithful' to the truth of impermanence, just of recognizing it. This doesn't mean that one should go and eschew the worldly/transient/conventional.

Your second sentence seems to agree with the necessary context I've been describing. Yet I disagree that one cannot speak of/know/see reality 'blatantly'. You have direct perception of reality, or even better, you are "being of reality" as you put it.

Meaning/belief is an aspect of self. Self can only accurately be described as consciousness, not as any particular. The teaching of "no-self" is a refutation of the delusion of deeming a differentiated particular aspect of form as being some kind of enduring self-substance.

Do you see the irony that the happiness spoken of here which obviously has meaning for you is without desire and without liberation? This quote, to me, is an example of an "airhead" quote.

It is not spoken of as being without desire and without liberation, the text is in fact constantly and blatantly contradictory, but conveys its point well. I would say that the obvious theme is not to convey the lack of all these things, but the lack of bondage, belief or clinging to all these things, such as 'desire' or 'liberation'.

As I see it, you believe in desire, context, purpose and ambition.

Desire, context, purpose, and ambition can all be said to exist. Yet I do not cling to these terms or what they describe nor suggest they are enduring. You cling to the "mind at rest", otherwise you should accept that it is a temporary 'mode' of consciousness, not some underlying movement of being finished.

Where once I declared emphatically that I had no beliefs and that I had to find "the absolute", I had to know what is true in all possible worlds, now I believe that no such certainty is possible. Our discussion on impermanence brought me to this insight. I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

I demonstrated certainty of absolute truth in regard to thought above. Perhaps if you stopped believing in "all possible worlds" you would also stop believing "no such certainty is possible". Belief of course is a broad term, and all language is of course only there for communication, so perhaps a better word is clinging. Without clinging or delusion, there is reality and absolute truth.

[Pam Seeback]

For me, our exchange in this thread has run its course. Thank-you for the meaning dance.

[jupiviv]

If every appearance demonstrates impermanence then reality itself is impermanence, so what then is the meaning of "impermanence"? Why should we not instead say that reality is permanent, and therefore all appearances as well?

Because we are referring to appearances, it is those that are transient.

If everything is an appearance, and one appearance is as transient as another, then what exactly is this "transience"? Why can't this quality of "transience" instead be called "The letter duet", which - if nothing else - promises a meeting under the swaying pines?

Yesterday morning I swept out the soot of the old year;
Tonight I pound rice for the New Year goodies;
There's a pine tree with roots, and oranges with green leaves
I put on a fresh new robe to await the coming guests.

[Russell Parr]

I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

Revelation (and consciousness in general) requires impermanence. Since the existence of 'possible worlds' is dependent on conscious perception, any sort of 'world of permanence' is illusory at best, and moreover logically impossible.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If everything is an appearance, and one appearance is as transient as another, then what exactly is this "transience"?

It is describing a lack of any 'permanence', the same way one can refute the existence of God, it conveys a truth. It's a refutation of "permanent".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But from the existential, personal view, what would be the difference between something seemingly lasting and something ever-lasting or ever-repeating? For example, one can say that daylight is impermanent and changing. But when the point of view would be transported a little distance, the same daylight would be non-stop for the duration of the sun itself. Now one could calculate the lifetime of a star and assume there will be an end to the light. But until that time comes, daylight will be permanently cyclic or constant, depending on actual vantage point or eye sight.

In relation to an extremely fleeting being like a human or his mind, many other processes will appear as more constant or lasting, even when just reliable in its recurrence. It's also the way one keeps track of time, perhaps even create the sense of being and permanency by noticing how relatively "stable" things around us are compared to our fleeting, cycling moods, chemicals, thought patterns and social events. We need gravity from somewhere, to keep "things together"!

Even when change is accepted logically as eternal and the case in all circumstances, it doesn't matter when confronted with a mountain. It won't move. The fleeting, temporary being will be forced to climb or go around it. Believing in change will not dissolve any mountain. The mountain is "god".

[jupiviv]

If everything is an appearance, and one appearance is as transient as another, then what exactly is this "transience"?

It is describing a lack of any 'permanence', the same way one can refute the existence of God, it conveys a truth. It's a refutation of "permanent".

It's not really the same though, because a sound refutation of God's existence debunks *specific* assertions about the existence of God, not existence per se and not any other assertions about the existence of God or anything else. For example, it's possible that some alien being created life on earth or even the solar system, but even that being wouldn't be the Allfather.

You assert that the transience of things refutes "permanent". In a purely semantic sense I suppose it does (the words have opposite meanings). In the same sense, "The letter duet"-ness of things refutes their non-"The letter duet"-ness, which incidentally promises absolutely nothing but rather makes grossly unreasonable demands of complete strangers! But saying things in that sense doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?