Hating the Self

[Leah]

Your genitals have nothing to do with the way I have dealt with you. Get over yourself.

hahhahah

Bizarre and creepy insight into sovereign brain.

[Leah]

In other words, it's perfectly alright on this forum to express less 'gentle' ideas. No need to wrap it.

Oh, they allow you to get away with using people to preen your feathers while calling it exposition of truth here? Good for you!

[Faust]

That's the freewill/determinism problem. But you can't say that you have NO freewill, I don't know where you got that concept. If we had no freewill that means we're not responsible for our actions and for our lives. You've just decided that you have no freewill and so it becomes reality.

Ultimately we don't have freewill, everything we do is predetermined through the infinite chain of cause and effect. However this does not mean we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions. Even though everything is predetermined, it is also unknowable. This reminds me of the parable about a thief and Diogenes.

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes.

"Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

I've already been through the path, and there's no way to destroy it, yes you can eradicate most of it and that's good enough. I have pride, but i'm not 'attached' to my ego to make me vulnerable to things. I haven't felt vulnerable in a long time, and that's cause I've greatly lowered the ego.

If you feel pride then you are neccessarily still attached to the ego to some extent. The ego can't exist without you being attached to it. Still, even though you feel pride it doesn't mean you let it corrupt you to the point of thinking or acting ignorantly. But lets not pretend it is a rational feeling, since all feelings are neccessarily irrational, due to their dependency on your attachment to the false self(ego). Delusion can only bring about more delusion, not Truth.

This infinite chain of cause and effect is affected by the causes that we do. You're contradicting yourself when you're saying that we shouldn't be irresponsible since that implies responsibility and freewill.

I'm not attached to my ego, does that mean that I've gotten rid of it? No, it just means that it's ineffectual, as humanely possible.

Again I believe that we have some freewill, and you're vague term of infinite chain of cause and effect doesn't refute this.

[Nick]

This infinite chain of cause and effect is affected by the causes that we do. You're contradicting yourself when you're saying that we shouldn't be irresponsible since that implies responsibility and freewill.

We aren't responsible for our actions in an Absolute sense, but in respect to our values and goals we are either responsible or irresponsible based one's perspective.

I'm not attached to my ego,

This statement is a contradition. The fact that you have an ego means you are attached to it. The ego's existence depends on your attachment to it. If you were able to let go of your attachment to it, it would disapear.

No, it just means that it's ineffectual, as humanely possible.

Well you already told me you have a sense of pride, amongst other things I assume, so it's obvious it's more effectual than you want to admit.

Again I believe that we have some freewill, and you're vague term of infinite chain of cause and effect doesn't refute this.

Your belief (blind faith), in freewill will only serve to keep your ego safe and sound. Until you learn to reason properly it's not at all accurate for you to say you have completed any path or done everything "humanly possible" to destroy your attachment to ego.

[Faust]

This infinite chain of cause and effect is affected by the causes that we do. You're contradicting yourself when you're saying that we shouldn't be irresponsible since that implies responsibility and freewill.

We aren't responsible for our actions in an Absolute sense, but in respect to our values and goals we are either responsible or irresponsible based one's perspective.

I'm not attached to my ego,

This statement is a contradition. The fact that you have an ego means you are attached to it. The ego's existence depends on your attachment to it. If you were able to let go of your attachment to it, it would disapear.

No, it just means that it's ineffectual, as humanely possible.

Well you already told me you have a sense of pride, amongst other things I assume, so it's obvious it's more effectual than you want to admit.

Again I believe that we have some freewill, and you're vague term of infinite chain of cause and effect doesn't refute this.

Your belief (blind faith), in freewill will only serve to keep your ego safe and sound. Until you learn to reason properly it's not at all accurate for you to say you have completed any path or done everything "humanly possible" to destroy your attachment to ego.

*sigh* here we go again. We aren't responsible for our actions in an absolute sense? As long as we're responsible for our actions it's absolute. You're downplaying yourself if you say that initiative and determination amount to nothing.

Then I guess I don't have an ego if I've lost my attachment to it. I think that you can have an ego but be detached, since the ego is very animal and probably impossible to get rid of, it's important to be detached to it to lose delusion and reach truth.

I don't have 'blind faith' to keep my ego secure and sound. The only reason I value freewill is due to the responsibility of our actions, which actually doesn't put my ego in security that much.

Yes the ego is very much self-delusional, it's hilariously ridiculous to see for example, a teenager's ego. But perhaps the only ego that has any value, is the one of someone who has accomplished something. If you accept responsibility for your actions you accept freewill.

[Nick]

*sigh* here we go again. We aren't responsible for our actions in an absolute sense? As long as we're responsible for our actions it's absolute. You're downplaying yourself if you say that initiative and determination amount to nothing.

We only have responsibilty if we are caused to have responsibility, just like everything else is caused to be whatever it may be. Meaning responsibility, or lack there of, has no inherent identity, meaning, or value.

Then I guess I don't have an ego if I've lost my attachment to it. I think that you can have an ego but be detached, since the ego is very animal and probably impossible to get rid of, it's important to be detached to it to lose delusion and reach truth.

It's obvious you are very attached to your ego because of your belief in the inherent existence of responsibility, giving you a sense of pride. Everything you do in your life has been predetermined, every piss you take, all the food you eat, every word your speak, and all the pride you will feel is set in stone. If you belive otherwise you are completely delusional. Anything you do is never done solely by you, you are a result of causes just like a piece of dog shit is, nothing more. If you begin to realize this some how, you will understand why a sense of pride is completely delusional.

I don't have 'blind faith' to keep my ego secure and sound. The only reason I value freewill is due to the responsibility of our actions, which actually doesn't put my ego in security that much.

So your saying you value freewill because you gain a sense of pride out of your responsibilities. This means you value emotions over Absolute Truth and wisdom. Take away freewill and what fun would that be for your ego right?

If you accept responsibility for your actions you accept freewill.

I take responsibility for all of my actions, and I also know freewill is a logical impossibility. I am caused to take responsibility for my actions and I am caused to know that everything I do is a result of infinite causes, deeming freewill a logical impossibility.

[BMcGilly07]

Leah, you are a jaded woman who looks to deal emotional hurt, giving hugs and kisses while you degrade. A typical feminine tactic, don't you have something better to do with your time?

Because I am a woman, you catagorise my behaviour according to what you think you already know about women. If I was a man, you would see my behaviour in a different light. It is extremely foolish to do this, and when you do, your corrupted head is always naked and on display to those with a greater perspective than yourself.

You read what I write and think,"Pfft, typical of a woman."

Yes, because it was "typical of a woman." It was a greater perspective that allows one to hash out your words for what they expose- a typical woman.

Bryan reading Leah's posts is Bryan watching for reasons to believe what he wants to believe stronger than he does already, and as such, feel more secure etc.

There was a quite literal interpretation of what you had written. Abusive words followed by hugs and kisses. The typical conditioning work of women, scold then affection- it keeps many men in a tizzy their entire lives. I am lucky enough to have believed so ideally in the love part that the abuse could no longer be hidden in the light, being so starkly contrasted.

So stupid.

Wait for it...

I wasn't degrading Nick, I was describing what I could see him doing. But when you read what I write, you can't stop thinking about the fact that I am a woman, because you are totally insane when it comes to women, your mind can't sit still around a woman, you are obsessed... you listen nervously and when you hear what you are waiting for you jump up and point your finger and say, "Ha! Just like I read somewhere!"

Wait for it...

So, so stupid.

Almost there...

Kiss hug.

There it is.

[BMcGilly07]

I wasn't degrading Nick, I was describing what I could see him doing.

For the record, the following is not degrading- just the callous dance of Leah's imagination:

Nick,

Your treasures are pond slime, rub them on your face, dwell in your hole, you are the big brave king of your hole with pond slime on your face.

xoxox
Leah

But when you read what I write, you can't stop thinking about the fact that I am a woman, because you are totally insane when it comes to women, your mind can't sit still around a woman, you are obsessed... you listen nervously and when you hear what you are waiting for you jump up and point your finger and say, "Ha! Just like I read somewhere!"

You probably wouldn't believe this, but I have no reaction whatsoever to women. Aside from the residual chivalry, such as opening doors and other stupid shit that's been ingrained since I was small, I have zero reaction to women.

They are nonentities in my world. Most men are nonentities in my worldview as well. Your come-hither stare into your webcam does nothing for me, I've seen the Infinite and you pale by comparison. The break with your like only happened when I thought I saw it in a woman, than recognized both sides of what lay before me.

Your primordial soup of a sea is brilliant, but god it stinks at low tide.

[Unidian]

Thou dost protest too much?

[BMcGilly07]

Thou dost protest too much?

Can one with regards to Woman? I am no saint.

[Unidian]

That's what I mean. For a group of people who think so little of "woman," certain GF participants certainly do spend a great deal of time talking about her.

No?

[Leah]

Abusive words followed by hugs and kisses. The typical conditioning work of women, scold then affection- it keeps many men in a tizzy their entire lives.

I think you'll find that the 'typical woman' works the other way around... first the affection, then the claws. This has nothing to do with me, you have just decided this is what I am doing, but it is not what I am doing.

I am lucky enough to have believed so ideally in the love part that the abuse could no longer be hidden in the light, being so starkly contrasted.

You've been burned or something in the past, this is what you are using to understand this situation. Typical human.

[Leah]

You probably wouldn't believe this, but I have no reaction whatsoever to women.

You must mean something other than the obvious by this, because here you are reacting to me, etc.

Aside from the residual chivalry, such as opening doors and other stupid shit that's been ingrained since I was small, I have zero reaction to women.

So you get about the place doing 'stupid shit', due to ingrained habitual tendencies? Wow, you are really advanced...

Your come-hither stare into your webcam does nothing for me, I've seen the Infinite and you pale by comparison.

No, you haven't seen the Infinite, Bryan McGilly.

My avatar does seem to have 'done something for you', being as you interpreted it as 'come hither', and that you mentioned it at all.

The break with your like only happened when I thought I saw it in a woman, than recognized both sides of what lay before me.

You can't help but bring up your scars in internet forum conversation... how does it go in the infinitely subtler realm of reason?

[Katy]

Yeah she just looked pissed off, or "yeah, whatever" not "come hither" to me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In other words, it's perfectly alright on this forum to express less 'gentle' ideas. No need to wrap it.

Oh, they allow you to get away with using people to preen your feathers while calling it exposition of truth here? Good for you!

It can become an exposition, if a discussion is allowed to be followed through with a ruthless amount of attention from the participants.

But yeah, people can get away with a lot more things here than in other 'philosophical' forums. More crap for sure but once in a while a diamond which cannot be else but wrought by pressure and pain over time, shines through.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

'Good' and 'evil' are rather overly poetic terms for any reference to truth to yield much poison though, don't you think? These terms are way too loaded in the sentient consciousness to bear much of a sword edge when pointing to enlightenment, and have been forever.

They are dangerous terms indeed. But the same could be said for love, hate, death, life, right, wrong, truth and lie. They're all loaded but that doesn't mean we have to discard them all in our discussions around truth, logic, wisdom and enlightenment. The skillfulness lies in the degree one can transpose these terms back to a logical sound meaning - or stop talking altogether. In the age of nihilism meaning itself has been assailed but perhaps a few people still are able to assign meaning where and when necessary?

Perhapsyou have just begun distinguishing 'good' and 'evil' when it comes to truth. If this is the case, then, to put it in your language, the terms 'good' and 'evil' are so difficult for sentience to not attach massive amounts of dirt to, that to use them to try to point sentience to truth is an 'evil' action. Haha.

That is exactly the problem when talking about anything at all here, like enlightenment, truth and so on. What kind of approach would you suggest instead? Some new-speak?

Also, try examining the state of whoever you are pointing for the benefit of, before you point... to help you come upon the best manner of pointing for that time and place. Otherwise, for whom are you really 'pointing', and for what hidden purpose?

My writing tends not to be so personal. What would I care about the state of whoever? It might go over ones head or under ones heels but it might still effect someone else in the process.

The truth has this property, like a lamp, that it cannot stand being hidden. Its property is to express itself - it is its own fuel. It's life.

[Nick]

That's what I mean. For a group of people who think so little of "woman," certain GF participants certainly do spend a great deal of time talking about her.

No?

The USA thinks very little of terrorists, but they spend a great deal of time talking about them.

The Catholic Chruch thinks very little of Communists, but they spend a great deal of time talking about them.

Recovering drug addicts think very little of the drugs they abused, but they spend a great deal of time talking about these drugs.

So what was the point of your post?

[Carl G]

This thread, essentially:

Young men throwing themselves upon the ramparts of the idol they have made of their hormonal slavery to woman, attempting to wean themselves from their mothers, but instead becoming entangled in the opposite of that love, namely anti-love, which is just as strong an attachment. May they battle on until they tire and then hopefully see the next step.

And Rory/ Katy.

I have no idea what she is doing here, or why she posts at Genius.

[Carl G]

Leah,

Good job fending off the dirks and daggers by being the calm mirror.

[Jamesh]

I want to find out how much depth she really has - been impressed so far with her logical manner, certainly on the ball - but haven't thought of the right questions as yet.

It will be something about that Enlightenment for Beginners post she made.

What is known as, "a mind that maintains the correct thought of true suchness" means that a correct thought is no-thought. If you are able to contemplate no-thought, you’re already steering toward the wisdom of the Buddhas.

"No thought" has never made any sense at all to me, but then how could it - it is a bit like the irrational concept of nothingness. No desire related values makes a lot more sense.

I think no thought is an impossibilty, except in a closed comfortable environment like a child with well off parents, or a monastry - I just do not see how it could be maintained in a difficult external environment. I don't see how anything could come from it, actually, except a feeling of ease.

I also want to know some of her history. Was she bought up by well off parents, who were into Eastern philosophy? Did she go through their system and allow someone else to judge her degree of enlightenment (she seems to be above this).

[David Quinn]

Carl wrote:

Leah,

Good job fending off the dirks and daggers by being the calm mirror.

Far too much sarcasm there for her to be calm mirror.

Isn't sarcasm generally regarded to be the lowest form of wit? It is certainly an expression of malice.

-

[David Quinn]

Leah wrote:

L: Fear of letting go. What is 'letting go'? Letting go is dropping your conceptions, dropping your self, dropping the mind.

DQ: Trying to let go of these things is itself a form of fear.

L: All semantics, nevertheless...

"Let go" is not "move away from". Not when used as I intended.
"Move away from" is the same as "move towards", it orbits the same point of 'attraction'... something "moves towards", then meets a critical point, then "moves away from", then meets a critical point, then "moves towards", etc etc.

The point around which your above comment revolves is the same point that I am pointing to when I say "let go", "drop", etc, as preferable to "kill", "fight", etc. I choose these words because they are closer to that point.

Boring semantics.

Semantics or not, the desire to do anything at all, even the desire to "let go", is ultimately motivated by fear and aversion. One is fearing the consequences of not letting go.

I notice that on your list of things to "let go" - namely, conceptions, self, and mind - there is no mention of emotions, love, family, pleasure, sex, life, etc - all the things that people normally enjoy very much. Does your "letting go" extend to all these things as well, or are you choosing to make exceptions of them?

L: If you drop the mind you can see the mind.

DQ: What mind?

Why are you creating all these non-existent problems for Nick?

L: What mind?

The mind here, that is happening... what are you, blind?

There is nothing to see, so how can I be blind?

Are you sure you have truly let go of your mind?

Where did your post come from?

From the bowels of Nature, where all things come from.

-

[Unidian]

That's what I mean. For a group of people who think so little of "woman," certain GF participants certainly do spend a great deal of time talking about her.

No?

The USA thinks very little of terrorists, but they spend a great deal of time talking about them.

The Catholic Chruch thinks very little of Communists, but they spend a great deal of time talking about them.

Recovering drug addicts think very little of the drugs they abused, but they spend a great deal of time talking about these drugs.

So what was the point of your post?

Exactly that. You made the point for me - terrorists, communists, drugs, and women - fear-based bogeymen one and all. Everybody's got to have an enemy, a scapegoat to blame for the ills of the world. Pick your poison.

[Nick]

Exactly that. You made the point for me - terrorists, communists, drugs, and women - fear-based bogeymen one and all. Everybody's got to have an enemy, a scapegoat to blame for the ills of the world. Pick your poison.

As if terrorists don't pose a threat to America, drugs don't pose a threat to and addict, and Woman doesn't pose a threat to someone looking to lead a spiritual life? Fear-based boogeymen eh? I've seen the damage terrorists can cause, I've seen the damage drugs can cause, and I've seen the damage Woman does to anyone's chances of living an honest and wise life. If you have a goal, there will be things standing in your way that need to be overcome.

Of course if you have no goals and wish to remain passive in the face of opposition then certainly you will never have anything to overcome. Yes, an enlightened world is a world in which everyone throws out their goals and aspirations to become as passive as a dead man! What could possibly stand in our way then?

[Jamesh]

Of course if you have no goals and wish to remain passive in the face of opposition then certainly you will never have anything to overcome. Yes, an enlightened world is a world in which everyone throws out their goals and aspirations to become as passive as a dead man! What could possibly stand in our way then?

A dearth of bodhi trees to sit under.