The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Blair]

Revising, backpeddling is for the impotent.

[Sphere70]

thus speak the man of 1394 (!) slack-dicked GF-posts.

Ya lil' poodle.

[Pam Seeback]

It is empty because all phenomena depends for its existence.

Which blueprint did you get this info from?

It is meaningless to attach to a blueprint to get through it.

You used a blueprint to get to the point where you are telling me it is meaningless to attach a blueprint to get through it. You used QRS' blueprint, did you not? And ZenBitchSlap's blueprint? Your previous comments about Jesus and Christianity being opposites comes from your subjective stroll through the blueprint of Jesus' words and your experience with Christianity, did they not? Are you not in the midst of a blueprint right now, the Genius Forum? You almost exclusively use words of human relativism; from what source do you attribute this subjective matrix of your everyday world?

True nature arrives like a bolt from the blue on that realisation.
Then its empty and astonishing.
Radical transformation.

In saying that IT is astonishing, you are using a term of human relativism, of using phenomena to promote your subjective feeling about IT. Is it not true to say that realization of the absolute and realization of the relative are not the same realizations?

Human adverbs and adjectives are the building blocks of relativism. The covering of one's absolute realization.

Blueprints are based on the assumption that existence has inherent meaning.
They are interpretations.
When you are a kid, teachers, parents, priests, monks, politicians, philosophers, peer groups indoctrinate you with their interpretations. You have let existence be interpreted for you.
You fit in, attach.
By fitting in you expect a payoff.

Dennis, wisdom blueprints are not based on the assumption that existence has inherent meaning. Just the opposite. They are not interpretations of human things, they are revelations to liberate you from human things. Your example of the childish desire to "fit in" in no way is relevant to a wisdom blueprint. One pushes you to attach, the other pushes you to detach. If you are not always detaching yourself, are you not looking for a payoff. Is not "astonishing" your subjective feeling payoff for contemplation of the nature of phenomena?

We've got so many blueprints in the World.
Various religions, capitalism, socialism, communism.
They all clash violently, seeking prominence, and render life on Earth relatively miserable.

Attaching to a formula looks very much like a cockie in a cage with its little mirror, food tray, water tray, swinging back and forth on its swing-perch, thinking there's gotta be something better than this and wondering if the grass is greener over there.

Mass hypnosis.

You are attached right now to a formula of its empty and meaningless and its a mystery and its astonishing. Accept this observation or reject this observation, but it is not the religious or political or social attachments that are the must difficult to uproot, it is the spiritual attachments that cling the longest and the hardest. And the spiritual attachments that cling the longest and hardest are those that are the subtle attachments. Attachments to an outcome such as you present below, and attachment to feeling forms, such as mystery and astonishing.

If the human race got their act together in this matter,
human existence would be much more enjoyable.
True nature would abound, calm abiding.
It would be more like a human stroll in the park rather than a human race.
For the time being.

Fact is, we're on death row,
no-one gets out alive,
doing time,
shit happens.

You see yourself [and I do mean literally "see yourself"] as physical human tossed in the flux of time, of birth and death, smelling the shit that just "happens." I am an individual unit or expression of the Absolute. I am neither alive nor dead. I am indeed "getting out", but this getting out has nothing to do with my human physical death, it is the death, the ongoing purification, of my human attachment to subjective relativism.

A = A. The absolute = The absolute. Human relativism = human relativism. Never the twain shall meet.

[Dennis Mahar]

No, I'm talking about an experience, a realisation.
Actually being in the experience of non-duality.
Being it.
What blueprints look like from there.

What you are doing is trying to beat me up Pam.

Did you mull over Nargajuna's reasoning regarding emptiness?

[Pam Seeback]

No, I'm talking about an experience, a realisation.
Actually being in the experience of non-duality.
Being it.

Experience is dual awareness. Your experience of "astonishing" is dependent on comparison with your idea of what is not astonishing, is it not? You may not recall the first time you heard the word "astonishing," but as sure as life is moving my fingers on this keyboard, somewhere during your time between birth and now, you heard the word, and are now a slave to your subjective-relative concept of "astonishing."

What blueprints look like from there.

A blueprint that arises from your subjective-relativism is the arousal of your conditioned humanism. Give me evidence that this is not so, and we'll talk about these blueprints in our new light of understanding.

What you are doing is trying to beat me up Pam.

Is it not you who declares that there is no self, so how can I do anything to you? My intent for responding to your posts is to apply the same sword of cutting away the error of mixing the absolute with the relative as I apply to myself. I can do nothing else but this, for it is who I am.

Did you mull over Nargajuna's reasoning regarding emptiness?

I have not read Naragajuna's reasoning regarding emptiness.

Reasoning takes you to emptiness not so you can rest on your intellectual awareness of emptiness, but so you can be emptied. Scraped clean. Finished. Of what? Of all the human language that you have allowed to cover the pure sight of the absolute of you. Every last attachment has to be uprooted, no exceptions. This is what blueprints "that take no prisoners", such as I posted for David on the immaterial and fine material "planes of existence" are for. They are brutal in their wisdom of transcendence, of moving every last condition of humanism out of the way so the spirit of life has unobstructed access to your conscience, which is IT's body, of "doing the perfect-righteous thing" of, and for, this moment of consciousness. It needs food, it eats through you. It needs to eliminate waste, it eliminates through you. It needs to remove an condition of humanism of someone who has come into its field of awareness, it does so through you. This is not an astonishing thing, or a mundane thing, or a sacred thing, or a secular thing, it is what it is, it does what it does. It sees a condition hindering its flow, it responds by removing the condition that is hindering its flow. It is the mind that is love with the distractions of human adjectives and adverbs that eventually become conditions, not the pure or absolute spirit of your life.

The problem with most here, is that they speak of the masculine view, which I see as being the vertical view of "absolute, or pure action", but don't want to let go of the horizontal view of the subjective-relative, the feminine: all those tasty adjectives and adverbs of ego are just too delicious to chew on to spit them out and leave them on the ground.

Take this or leave this, but your non dual realization is an intellectual one; you are not living in the non dual, or as the non dual, or of the non dual. No beating up here, just the dropping of the sword of the spirit of the absolute.

[Dennis Mahar]

So, you've got me tagged eh?
blueprinted me?
Could you be projecting on a projection?

[Bob Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers

I half-suspected that was what is was. But another one of the many signs that we're in the last days.

[Tomas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers

I half-suspected that was what is was. But another one of the many signs that we're in the last days.

Bobster,

Please define 'Last Days'.

[Bob Michael]

Telling the truth without having a dead-serious focus and goal of discovering a higher plane of living in a thoroughly insane and godless world is but another game, another addiction.

Both goal and focus are activities with a future aim, that is it's an occupation with abstraction.
In my view an Enlightened fella' has neither focus nor goal. He is what is, unidentified with the cloud-castles of the mind.

Revising the above a bit - I believe there is still a focus though, but a focus that is unclenched by the interpreter called self and consequently a focus that is instead a more natural and dynamic interplay with what gives in any specific moment, a Wu-Wei type of focus.

Anyway you cut it, attaining to spiritual perfection, total selflessness, or pure Spirit is not an overnight matter. Nor does it take place by osmosis. It requires keenly alert self-critical watchfulness and conscious efforts. Nor will it ever take place without first undergoing a radical shift in consciousness or manner of brain functioning.

[Bob Michael]

Please define 'Last Days'.

Those days immediately preceding the total collapse of the spiritually and morally bankrupt civilizations that fallen man has created.

[Bob Michael]

And because I swear online or smoke marijuana, does not exempt me from having the light of God in me.

Why the need for marijuana? I would think your "light of God" would be both purer and brighter if you were free of ingesting mood or consciousness altering substances. At least this continues to be my experience. Likewise, I find the same thing is true of swearing.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

I have not read Naragajuna's reasoning regarding emptiness.

Most of Buddhism reads like a travel brochure...womanly pap...and you can put your reference in that category.
Just like Bob's stories read like a travel brochure.

Nagarjuna and his proteges took another approach.
They actually undertook the hardcore analysis..the hardcore masculine thinking that is hard to get but once got delivers the radical transformation.

When Pam writes what is disclosed is Pam's World, Pam's conceptual structure, Pam's projection..
Pam fits what appears to her in the way it's going to fit in to an always/already Pam's World.
On the object Dennis appearing in Pam's World, out comes withering scorn.
On the object Masculine appearing in Pam's World out comes withering scorn.
On the object 'finite world' appearing in Pam's World out comes withering scorn.
So what we can put in the bank is withering scorn.
Dare I say 'emotional'.

You wouldn't be projecting on a projection would you?

What I request from you is an admission of 'withering scorn'.
because it sure looks like it.

[Pam Seeback]

What I request from you is an admission of 'withering scorn'.
because it sure looks like it.

The reflection you are receiving from me is of your own projection of withering scorn. I will not, because I cannot, admit to that which is not true of me. I call attention to the words you use: "because it sure looks like it." Is this an absolute statement? No. Am I offering you "withering scorn" in pointing this out? No. The bottom line question to me is: why do you enter my posts if what you perceive is being given you is "withering scorn?"

Dennis, I am the light of my own darkness; I remove the conditions I have placed in the way of my absolute view. Not by reasoning, not by logic, not by emotionalism, but by listening to the absolute or infinity of life [ME] that shows me the way. Be still and know I am God. Sometimes this way comes by image, sometimes by word, sometimes by both, sometimes without either, but always, I am given the way to liberate Myself from myself. This is, to me, is true wisdom of the infinite or absoluteness of me, of everyone. I am here to question, with absolute certainty born of my own living, the position of those who believe that the unconditioned absolute absolutely expresses itself through the human intellect [the perceived masculine] or the human feeling sense [the perceived feminine].

If you put aside all your feelings about Pam, what is left but to touch and be touched by the wisdom we can offer one another? A wisdom that begins with reasoning, and ends with reasoning; a wisdom of "be the unconditioned dissolving the conditioned." I put this question to you, if you care to answer: Do you reason that the unconditioned absolute absolutely expresses itself through the conditioned human intellect and/or human feeling sense?

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam is a projection projecting Pam's World with a set of rules like 'adverbs and adjectives'..
Pam is locked up in Pam's World,
that Pam believes delivers a payoff.
Pam has a mood and an understanding.
In reifying Pam,
I didn't declare Pam as 'withering scorn',
I asked if Pam is putting 'withering scorn' out there because it sure looks like it.

Pam responds and denies 'withering scorn'.
What's there then?

[Kunga]

EHMAHO! Once more gather round and listen, my children! It is absurd to try to purify external objects, which are insubstantial appearances, the natural forms of emptiness. They are empty from the beginning, like the reflection of the moon in water.

It is absurd to apply forceful antidotes to thoughts and concepts, and internal objects. They vanish by themselves without a trace. It is absurd to try to improve mind's manifestations with your renunciation, your practice of self-improvement, or your hopes and fears. They are free from the beginning and primal awareness by nature.

Do not dress up Knowledge, which is naked clarity itself, in the clothes of elaborate intellectual analysis. Rather, rest in relaxation in that magnificent sameness that is without partiality. Stay free and easy, without a care in the world, in the place where there is no residue to perception.

No matter what thoughts arise in that space, know them to be the natural radiance of impartial and spontaeously existent Knowledge. Then we are able to let go of the mental residue of perception. Abandoning the manifestations of mind to vast all-embracing space as the play of elusive, effervescent, shimmering reality, we immediately reach the plenum of Kuntu Zangpo's dynamic mind.

The foregoing is called the universal, self-liberating yoga of the naturally accomplished and originally liberated Great Perfection.

Although we do not move, we arrive at the Buddha's seat. Although we do not practice, the goal is spontaneously accomplished. Although we do not abandon emotional defilements, they are purified as they stand. Thus our Mind is the same as the dynamic minds of the great Lamas, and following in their footsteps our karma is exhausted.

You should understand the enormous significance of this, my sons and daughters.
By the generosity of the wise old man Choki Gyelpo, I, Tsokdruk Rangdrol, attained the spontaneously originated, dynamic mind of Vagrant Non-action.

Lama Shabkar - The Flight of Tha Garuda - Song 18

[Blair]

thus speak the man of 1394 (!) slack-dicked GF-posts.

Ya lil' poodle.

Man up then, where you at?

(pm)

[Sphere70]

thus speak the man of 1394 (!) slack-dicked GF-posts.

Ya lil' poodle.

Man up then, where you at?

(pm)

haha 'man up'?

I'm here.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam is a projection projecting Pam's World with a set of rules like 'adverbs and adjectives'..
Pam is locked up in Pam's World,
that Pam believes delivers a payoff.
Pam has a mood and an understanding.
In reifying Pam,
I didn't declare Pam as 'withering scorn',
I asked if Pam is putting 'withering scorn' out there because it sure looks like it.

Pam responds and denies 'withering scorn'.
What's there then?

I have already given you what you have asked for, "what's there then?", but you have ignored these things in favor for dwelling on your human interpretation of how my words make you feel. A short summary of "what Pam is about": Pam's concept of being radically transformed is to be purified absolutely of one's human attributes so one's absolute nature can be revealed. Wherein nothing but the absolute truth of Pam, moves Pam, becomes Pam, is Pam. If this understanding of radical transformation from being human to being the absolute truth of one's conscious movement interests you, then let's talk. If not, this is the end of our dialogue.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

I have already given you what you have asked for, "what's there then?", but you have ignored these things in favor for dwelling on your human interpretation of how my words make you feel. A short summary of "what Pam is about": Pam's concept of being radically transformed is to be purified absolutely of one's human attributes so one's absolute nature can be revealed. Wherein nothing but the absolute truth of Pam, moves Pam, becomes Pam, is Pam. If this understanding of radical transformation from being human to being the absolute truth of one's conscious movement interests you, then let's talk. If not, this is the end of our dialogue.

That sure looks like withering scorn to me.
That's what I find fascinating.
That tone.

Pam's concept of being radically transformed is to be purified absolutely of one's human attributes so one's absolute nature can be revealed.

What are the rules involved in achieving that?
There has to be actions undertaken in order to, for the ultimate sake of being purified absolutely.
Is the action withdrawing projections, if so, I can understand that.
Deconstructing conditioning.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam: Pam's concept of being radically transformed is to be purified absolutely of one's human attributes so one's absolute nature can be revealed.

Dennis: What are the rules involved in achieving that?
There has to be actions undertaken in order to, for the ultimate sake of being purified absolutely.
Is the action withdrawing projections, if so, I can understand that.
Deconstructing conditioning.

Ceasing projections of conditioning such as:

withering scorn

That tone.

That's what I find fascinating.

astonishing

mystery

[Dennis Mahar]

Touche.
Good response.
Smashing. Very funny..Loved it. (forgive me yet another projection or two there).

So that's it.
Withdrawing projections?

How's it going?

I understand there's ultimately nothing to say.
That going past,
Good Morning
and
Pass the potato's please,
involves projection.

What's being recommended by you is Vow of Silence or close to it isn't it?

How do you cope with 2 kids and hubby?

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Pam,
If projection means,
weaving the dream.

Pam's concept of being radically transformed is to be purified absolutely of one's human attributes so one's absolute nature can be revealed. Wherein nothing but the absolute truth of Pam, moves Pam, becomes Pam, is Pam.

We might be agreeing here.
Do you mean by 'human attributes'..
Human as projector projecting,
as dream weaver?

The withdrawal of that.

[Pam Seeback]

You already know the answer to your question, or it wouldn't be there.

[cousinbasil]

The way out is the way through

Pam you use this as a signature, but every time I see it it strikes me as somehow odd. It is supposed to read as an aphorism. But if so, it seems to me it should be the other way around: "The way through is the way out." In my mind, one needing this adage at all would be one facing something - perhaps life's vicissitudes in general, and wishing he could be free of them. If you are exhorting him to stay the course, to keep going through it all, if the going is tough the tough get going, etc., you would be telling him the only way out is the way through. You signature seems to do just the opposite. It's as if the advisee is seeking a way out - to avoid dharma, his duty - and you are encouraging him. You seem to be saying, "If you put it off long enough, it will go away." Which may be true, and may be your intention after all. I admit the distinction is subtle, since the sentence 's predicate is the verb "to be" is. Is equals equals. And equal signs do not distinguish between left side and right.

But do you see what I mean? It's as if you are saying, "Thinking of quitting? Go ahead! It doesn't matter!" When you want to be saying, "If you want out, stay in - staying in is the only true way out."

[Pam Seeback]

cousinbasil, you are playing the game of reasoning my own words with me, a game that can take us no where but back into the reasoning game. For me, any reasoning that is to be done with regards to another's words is one that is done in silence, for the sake of one's own salvation or liberation from belief in the reality of birth and death. I ask you to consider that not only is reasoning the reasoning of another not productive with regards to dissolving belief in the reality of birth and death, but that this activity of layered reasoning is counterproductive with regards to this task. Why? Because of the eternal cycle of: reasoning exists because of belief in birth and death, and birth and death exists because of belief in reasoning.

Therefore, for the sake of my liberation and for the liberation for all who are reading this post, I decline to reason your reasoning of my signature.