Women as emotional being :myth ?

[jupiviv]

the education is in the primordial wisdom of emptiness.

There can't be any wisdom of emptiness, by definition, let alone an education in it.

what emptiness means, in part, is infinite possibilities for form which enables constant transformation.
and how is that made possible?
by an imputing consciousness.

This is like rubbing your eyes to see flowers in the air.

the cup is there by imputation.
the cup is ultimately not there.
it can't be said the cup isn't there.
how the cup is there is the realisation of emptiness.

Again, rubbing your eyes to see flowers in the air. How can realising emptiness tell you anything about that which you previously believed to be not empty?

[Cathy Preston]

the notion that each and every human being is the seed of a possibility of enlightenment hasn't been refuted,
what has been disclosed is that it is a difficult project requiring commitment.
what is also disclosed is a curriculum for education (dharma).

the education is in the primordial wisdom of emptiness.
the requirement for that is a spaciousness of mind that is nigh on impossible to experience for a mind excessively distracted by worldly concerns.

what emptiness means, in part, is infinite possibilities for form which enables constant transformation.
and how is that made possible?
by an imputing consciousness.

the cup is there by imputation.
the cup is ultimately not there.
it can't be said the cup isn't there.
how the cup is there is the realisation of emptiness.

the self is there by imputation.
the self is ultimately not there.
it can't be said the self isn't there.
how the self is there is the realisation of emptiness.

a further revelation, which is a total mind-fuck is the realisation that an imputing consciousness is itself imputed.

When David says there's nothing there ultimately,
what I get is he has followed that line of reasoning.

now the obvious question for inquiry is,
what is the act of imputation?

The idea of absolute is meaningless unless contrasted against something, and phenomenal ceases to be if there is nothing non-phenomenal to relate it too, so in this line of thinking all is empty, all is relative. Yet surely if relativism has meaning, the non-relative must also have meaning as contrast. But there is nothing that exists outside of relativity, Samsara, Nirvana, emptiness, enlightenment all relative, therefore relativity is in itself meaningless.

Imputed? the actions of the Agent are deemed to be that of the Principal. Since we can find no agent (Buddha nature is empty) there is no principal.
#

[Dennis Mahar]

it should have said the primordial wisdom of emptiness of mind.

nothing exists outside of consciousness.

world is built of ideas.

things, ideas, on examination, break down and disappear.

postulates are running.

suffering is imputed.

mind is imputed.

astonishing.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dennis Mahar wrote:

the notion that each and every human being is the seed of a possibility of enlightenment hasn't been refuted,
what has been disclosed is that it is a difficult project requiring commitment.
what is also disclosed is a curriculum for education (dharma).

the education is in the primordial wisdom of emptiness.
the requirement for that is a spaciousness of mind that is nigh on impossible to experience for a mind excessively distracted by worldly concerns.

Most people’s minds are far too open and airy, making them able to accept any old guff. Therefore “spaciousness” isn’t lacking. What is lacking is a single-minded dedication to the truth. You went some way by describing this when you said that enlightenment is “a difficult project requiring commitment”, but when placed beside your idea that “every human being is the seed of a possibility of enlightenment” you show that you don’t really understand what is being asked of a person. Someone who did know is Kierkegaard. He wrote:

Nothing is more certain. Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock.

Understanding truth is difficult, because all the things you have based your life upon you discover have been nothing but lies. Living truth is even more difficult, because now you live without those lies you were once so dependent on. As Kierkegaard writes:

There is an almost mad self-contradiction in Christianity’s requirement. It sets a task and exclaims: In the same degree as you succeed in faith, you will come to suffer more and more.

[Dennis Mahar]

the definition of spaciousness I'm referring to is relatively unattached to form,
because form is causes/conditions,
it's nature is impermanent and lacks selfhood.

that doesn't mean form doesn't exist.
it just means how it exists.

Kierkegard is a meaning maker.
there is no intrinsic meaning,
it seems Kierkegaard thinks there is as his story unfolds.

the nature of human being is meaning maker.
we can't go on assuming there's fixed condions which meaning making attempts to establish.

any and all is empty.

[jupiviv]

Kierkegard is a meaning maker.
there is no intrinsic meaning,
it seems Kierkegaard thinks there is as his story unfolds.

Yes, Kierkegaard seems to think that a relationship to "God" must necessarily involve suffering, which is not true. In fact, if there is suffering, then the relationship to God isn't complete. Desiring intrinsic meaning, and the inability to affirm it, is precisely what brings suffering. But one should not give in to it - I think that is what Kierkegaard means in those quotes.

Actually, there is no lack of intrinsic meaning either, since things can't intrinsically lack intrinsic meaning. That which is perceived to be necessarily lacking intrinsic meaning must possess intrinsic meaning for that very reason.

[ForbidenRea]

When I was in catholic school the teacher wrote on the board, " Blish" and she asked a further question, " What is it.....?"
I was 16 at the time. Geniuses, Moa, Whatever you call it nowadays. It hasen't or it ideololigically didn't occur to me the myth of all blessed tisks. Whomever invented the time macu is actually the source of a non-nero dissaster.
A fourth coming; when, I was just a mystical by my mother engraved in me not to allow the breakthrough of partiti I was just a young boy. My gradification, aka. I hearts. Where in no case out of reach until I was at an age where nothing besides me or underneath the prism of goodness could be subdued and nullified.
What? Does the heart not bleed? Is 'Christ' the Center of space. Or, "NO" perhaps we are the centeredness of a lifetime of regrets. S. >

[Dan Rowden]

Dude, I don't know if you're posting high or drunk half the time, but please strive for genuine coherence and relevance if you wish to hang around.

[Dennis Mahar]

Human beings, living in their kind of sheltered workshop, hunger for meaning,
they need, require, look for and invent 'intrinsic meaning'.
they become enchanted by Stories.

Does the universe have meaning? The universe includes everything — it cannot point to or refer to something that lies outside itself — it cannot signify anything. The universe is also not a purposeful agent — it doesn’t possess intentionality.

intrinsic meaning is conventional or an agreement between people.
ultimately the idea of intrinsic meaning is false.

that is the (no) meaning.

You can't posit any purpose for the universe. It (we) just always is (was)/(will be), in constant transformation. Its “meaning” (in this case “meaning” is a meaningless term) is its existence.

[jupiviv]

The universe includes everything — it cannot point to or refer to something that lies outside itself — it cannot signify anything. The universe is also not a purposeful agent — it doesn’t possess intentionality.

Because the universe is everything, it is absolutely meaningful. All of its parts(finite things) are meaningful only to the extent that they are parts of it.

You can't posit any purpose for the universe. It (we) just always is (was)/(will be), in constant transformation. Its “meaning” (in this case “meaning” is a meaningless term) is its existence.

The universe isn't purposeless, since there is no purpose outside it that it lacks.

[Cathy Preston]

#
It's impossible for an Eternal Universe to have a fixed or Ultimate purpose.

All of its parts (finite things) are completely meaningless, parts must be meaningless for change to occur, it's the coming together of parts that conveys meaning not the parts themselves.
#

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: Yes, Kierkegaard seems to think that a relationship to "God" must necessarily involve suffering, which is not true. In fact, if there is suffering, then the relationship to God isn't complete. Desiring intrinsic meaning, and the inability to affirm it, is precisely what brings suffering. But one should not give in to it - I think that is what Kierkegaard means in those quotes.

Explain to me how incompleteness is possible when one is never outside of their relationship with "God" who or what is, by definition, complete?

[Cathy Preston]

A relationship with God is suffering, the end of suffering is the end of the relationship. It takes two to have a relationship.

[Pam Seeback]

A relationship with God is suffering, the end of suffering is the end of the relationship. It takes two to have a relationship.

Getting past the semantics, since God is the cause of everything, one cannot end one's awareness of all that is caused by God, including hunger, thirst, sickness, disease and death, aka, suffering. Have these things been caused to be ended in your awareness?

[Cathy Preston]

#

including hunger, thirst, sickness, disease and death, aka, suffering. Have these things been caused to be ended in your awareness?

These things no longer make me suffer.

[Kunga]

#
It's impossible for an Eternal Universe to have a fixed or Ultimate purpose.

All of its parts (finite things) are completely meaningless, parts must be meaningless for change to occur, it's the coming together of parts that conveys meaning not the parts themselves.
#

,


What's the purpose of the # # sign's before and after your posts ?
:) Are you trying to pound it into our heads ?
LOL

[Dennis Mahar]

Words have meaning. They point to external referents — things that exist outside themselves in the real world: agents, actions, and objects. It is their 'about-ness,
'their correspondence to something lying beyond a system of signs, that allows them to mean something.

Actions have meaning,
We ask “What did you mean by that?” Human actions have underlying motives. There is something beyond the action itself, an intention that lies behind the action. We can look at actions and infer, or inquire into, the purpose that generated it.

That is the meaning of meaning.
Human meaning.

Do you think 'the universe' has identity crises?
prays to God?
trawls bars for sex?
argues incessantly with other universes?
looks in the mirror for pimples?
is it a punk universe trying to impress other universes?

[Kunga]

Are we separate from the Universe ?
No.The Universe picks his nose.

[Cathy Preston]

#
It's impossible for an Eternal Universe to have a fixed or Ultimate purpose.

All of its parts (finite things) are completely meaningless, parts must be meaningless for change to occur, it's the coming together of parts that conveys meaning not the parts themselves.
#

,


What's the purpose of the # # sign's before and after your posts ?
:) Are you trying to pound it into our heads ?
LOL

Hah! Honestly I post for my own clarity, the lb signs are just to create empty space, seems easier to read that way. I agree the Universe definitely picks his nose which means he gets boogers!

[Kunga]

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/plains_w ... iginal.jpg
I pick't it just for you

[jupiviv]

Words have meaning. They point to external referents — things that exist outside themselves in the real world: agents, actions, and objects. It is their 'about-ness,
'their correspondence to something lying beyond a system of signs, that allows them to mean something.

Words may not mean anything at all. Likewise, actions may not have any motive/purpose behind them. In fact, it is completely up to the reader of words or observer of actions to decide whether they are meaningful or not. They either lack or possess what one considers to be meaning. But regardless of that, they are still meaningful and purposeful in that they are parts of the All. In fact, that is the only real meaning or purpose they can have.

It's impossible for an Eternal Universe to have a fixed or Ultimate purpose.

It's also impossible for it to lack a fixed or ultimate purpose.

All of its parts (finite things) are completely meaningless, parts must be meaningless for change to occur, it's the coming together of parts that conveys meaning not the parts themselves.

If the meaninglessness of parts is a requisite for change then they are not completely meaningless.

[Dennis Mahar]

Words may not mean anything at all. Likewise, actions may not have any motive/purpose behind them. In fact, it is completely up to the reader of words or observer of actions to decide whether they are meaningful or not. They either lack or possess what one considers to be meaning. But regardless of that, they are still meaningful and purposeful in that they are parts of the All. In fact, that is the only real meaning or purpose they can have.

So the reader of the words and the observer of the action commits the act of decision regarding meaning.
obviously the decider has recognised meaning in order to decide.
Your logic fails in the given context.
the decider is merely deciding to respond or not.

the argument is words have meaning, actions have meaning.
the response is beside the point and is another context.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dennis Mahar wrote:

the definition of spaciousness I'm referring to is relatively unattached to form,

So was I. Sadly for the world, and for this forum, most people’s minds are more than capable of holding much nonsense. This situation arises because they do not take their own lives seriously enough to care what goes in or what tumbles out of their minds. They just don’t care.

because form is causes/conditions,
it's nature is impermanent and lacks selfhood.

What caused you to come onto this forum and write posts such as you do?

that doesn't mean form doesn't exist.
it just means how it exists.

When you go to cross a street, do you look left and right to see if any cars are coming before you cross?

Kierkegard is a meaning maker.
there is no intrinsic meaning,
it seems Kierkegaard thinks there is as his story unfolds.

the nature of human being is meaning maker.
we can't go on assuming there's fixed condions which meaning making attempts to establish.

Saying that Kierkegaard is a “meaning maker” is like saying Einstein was a doodler! It is criminal of you to label the mind of such a man as glibly as you have. Kierkegaard’s deep love of truth is present in all he wrote. His words jump off the page they are so full of life.

Your scratchings, and those of your ilk that post on this forum, show how much you despise life, and despise truth by your constant evasion of everything. You go on and on saying nothing at all. You pretend that you are removed from humanity by rejecting it. But all you prove is that you are frightened by everything.

First place your feet on the ground and then write what you are.

[sue hindmarsh]

Kierkegaard quotes I posted:

Nothing is more certain. Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock.

There is an almost mad self-contradiction in Christianity’s requirement. It sets a task and exclaims: In the same degree as you succeed in faith, you will come to suffer more and more.

Jupiviv wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Kierkegard is a meaning maker.
there is no intrinsic meaning,
it seems Kierkegaard thinks there is as his story unfolds.

Yes, Kierkegaard seems to think that a relationship to "God" must necessarily involve suffering, which is not true. In fact, if there is suffering, then the relationship to God isn't complete. Desiring intrinsic meaning, and the inability to affirm it, is precisely what brings suffering. But one should not give in to it - I think that is what Kierkegaard means in those quotes.

And you would be mistaken thinking that that was his meaning. Kierkegaard doesn’t say anything about not giving into suffering. He says plainly that there will be suffering; one will experience catastrophe. And what causes this suffering? It is caused by the clash between being in the world, but not of it. Of being an alien to what the world considers ‘human’. As Kierkegaard writes: To be an alien, to be in exile, is the mark of Christian suffering.

He tells us this because it is what he directly knows. He writes with his whole self. He is direct – not desiring to confuse or befuddle people, or to pretend he is something he is not. He is an honest man.

Actually, there is no lack of intrinsic meaning either, since things can't indtrinsically lack intrinsic meaning. That which is perceived to be necessarily lacking intrinsic meaning must possess intrinsic meaning for that very reason.

Kierkegaard’s compassion in forewarning us and thereby preparing the way is again plainly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to understand. There is no twisting of words, no posturing in empty phrases. He looks at us squarely in the face and speaks the truth.

[Kunga]

a breath of fresh air.