Women as emotional being :myth ?

[jupiviv]

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.

Meaning either appears or doesn't - that's what I am saying. Nothing possesses any inherent meaning(or meaninglessness), so it's not a question of "responding" to the meaning.

[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.

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.

Wisdom doesn't cause suffering, by definition. Ignorance does. If a person is suffering then he is ignorant to the extent he suffers. A wise person merely acknowledges suffering where he sees it, which is what Kierkegaard is doing.

Have you read Kierkegaard's "Fear and trembling"? In it he makes a distinction between the "knight of faith" and the "knight of resignation", where the former is wholly reconciled with "God" while the latter still has some attachments.

[Pam Seeback]

#

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.

For me, having been caused to have a body makes me suffer. Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it is what it is. This was my point to jupiviv, that to be aware of suffering does not mean one is incomplete of Oneself [call this God or the Tao or Spirit, whatever]. That we are always complete, regardless of how incomplete our mind tries to tell us we are.

[Dennis Mahar]

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.

No, no, no,
suffering is imputed.
it's given meaning.
by a meaning maker.
Kierkegaard is wallowing.
geddit?

you have to know the causes of suffering to end it.

give up on your vicious, shaming tongue lass,
it gets in the way of reason.

think about it.
suffering is imputed,
couldn't be any other way.

[Dennis Mahar]

jup,

Nothing possesses any inherent meaning(or meaninglessness

you've cleared that up with the key qualifier 'inherent'.
good work.
it's true.

humans make or impute meaning.

[jupiviv]

jup,

Nothing possesses any inherent meaning(or meaninglessness

you've cleared that up with the key qualifier 'inherent'.
good work.
it's true.

humans make or impute meaning.

Imputing meaning would mean that something already has inherent meaning. Ultimately all things have only one meaning, and that can neither be imputed nor taken away.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, jupiviv, I find that most human beings are surface dwellers in their exploration of when suffering was imputed and because of this surface dwelling, have become human-centred in their vision of suffering's end. In my experience, most human's restrict their understanding of suffering to the human realm, this thread being a perfect example, that of the effects of emotionalism on the ability to reason one's way to a "good" life. An analysis that blocks them to the truth that suffering was imputed long before the human intellect was caused to be formed to become aware of "good", the suffering that was willed or reasoned or caused by "God Itself", the root of all suffering, that of the will to appear as a projection [of matter].

Tell a wolf ["God's" projection of matter] whose leg is broken and who starves as a result of the broken leg that all it needs is love or a dream or reason and suffering will be no more. Tell a female lion whose screaming cub has been dragged off by a hyena to be eaten alive that all she has to do is find her bliss or become clear-headed and "sane" and suffering will be no more.

How will "God" impute matter, suffering to be dissolved? I have not been imputed yet to know, but I have been imputed to pay attention. :-)

[Cathy Preston]

Tell a wolf ["God's" projection of matter] whose leg is broken and who starves as a result of the broken leg that all it needs is love or a dream or reason and suffering will be no more. Tell a female lion whose screaming cub has been dragged off by a hyena to be eaten alive that all she has to do is find her bliss or become clear-headed and "sane" and suffering will be no more.

You're projecting onto the wolf, it's you suffering you have no idea what is going on in the mind of wolf. You believe only in man thus see catastrophe as wrong, thus suffer from it. Catastrophe is transformation, it's not the enemy you think it is, all is God.

[Cathy Preston]

Dennis, jupiviv, I find that most human beings are surface dwellers in their exploration of when suffering was imputed and because of this surface dwelling, have become human-centred in their division of suffering's end. In my experience, most human's restrict their understanding of suffering to the human realm, this thread being a perfect example, that of the effects of emotionalism on the ability to reason one's way to a "good" life. An analysis that blocks them to the truth that suffering was imputed long before the human intellect was caused to be formed to become aware of "good", the suffering that was willed or reasoned or caused by "God Itself", the root of all suffering, that of the will to appear as a projection [of matter].

There is no such thing as a "good life" opposing forces work seamlessly together to create life, when this is really understood all parts of life are good. Suffering is not caused by God, suffering is caused by ignorance. The ego is the cause of suffering, the ego is intrinsically insecure, eternally dissatisfied, and self replicating.

[Pam Seeback]

Tell a wolf ["God's" projection of matter] whose leg is broken and who starves as a result of the broken leg that all it needs is love or a dream or reason and suffering will be no more. Tell a female lion whose screaming cub has been dragged off by a hyena to be eaten alive that all she has to do is find her bliss or become clear-headed and "sane" and suffering will be no more.

You're projecting onto the wolf, it's you suffering you have no idea what is going on in the mind of wolf. You believe only in man thus see catastrophe as wrong, thus suffer from it. Catastrophe is transformation, it's not the enemy you think it is, all is God.

Yes, I do know what is going on in the mind of the wolf by relatedness of being sentient. To deny relatedness of sentience, to me, is more insane than is denying that reasoning can purify the mind of emotionalism. It is no different that the relatedness I experienced with my son or daughter when they cried for the breast. If I had taken the stance which you propose, which is to say I was only projecting my awareness of suffering on my babies, well, needless to say, they would not be alive today. Once upon a time I tried to convince myself that I was just "projecting" suffering onto the animal realm, but now, I realize that is just what I was doing, trying to convince myself. A broken leg is a broken leg, animal or human. You can reason your broken leg into being repaired, no such luxury is afforded the wolf.

As for everything being of God, including the "thing" of suffering, sentience, I acknowledged this truth in my previous post. I await, with a clear mind, freed of greed, freed of lust, freed of delusion, caused by God, to cause me to be made aware of suffering's end. So far, God has caused me to be aware of the cause of suffering, sentience, and to experience suffering's truth, compassion by relatedness. What comes next, if there is a next, is yet to be revealed. Hope springs eternal.

Not relate to the suffering of all sentient beings? Human denial, human vanity, plain and simple.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, jupiviv, I find that most human beings are surface dwellers in their exploration of when suffering was imputed and because of this surface dwelling, have become human-centred in their division of suffering's end. In my experience, most human's restrict their understanding of suffering to the human realm, this thread being a perfect example, that of the effects of emotionalism on the ability to reason one's way to a "good" life. An analysis that blocks them to the truth that suffering was imputed long before the human intellect was caused to be formed to become aware of "good", the suffering that was willed or reasoned or caused by "God Itself", the root of all suffering, that of the will to appear as a projection [of matter].

There is no such thing as a "good life" opposing forces work seamlessly together to create life, when this is really understood all parts of life are good. Suffering is not caused by God, suffering is caused by ignorance. The ego is the cause of suffering, the ego is intrinsically insecure, eternally dissatisfied, and self replicating.

And who or what caused ignorance?

[Cathy Preston]

And who or what caused ignorance?

The nature of consciousness causes confusion, through this mis-perception the ego is born, nurtured and taken for real.

[Pam Seeback]

And who or what caused ignorance?

The nature of consciousness causes confusion, through this mis-perception the ego is born, nurtured and taken for real.

What has the appearance of the matter of ego, ignorance by extension, to do with the root cause of ignorance, the appearance of matter in consciousness [or God, or the Tao, or spirit, that which is without ego]? Does the death of the ego cause the death of matter, the death of sentience? I have seen no evidence to support this conclusion.

[Cathy Preston]

And who or what caused ignorance?

The nature of consciousness causes confusion, through this mis-perception the ego is born, nurtured and taken for real.

What has the appearance of the matter of ego, ignorance by extension, to do with the root cause of ignorance, the appearance of matter in consciousness [or God, or the Tao, or spirit, that which is without ego]? Does the death of the ego cause the death of matter, the death of sentience? I have seen no evidence to support this conclusion.

Consciousness is matter, it is limited, measurable and from a center point, and on the surface it seems like a doer doing, a seer seeing, a self and not self. We take it for a simple representation of reality and because we are so enthralled by our senses it's easily passed on as true. It's only when we begin to really pay attention and look closer do we begin to understand this is not what's really happening. Doer and Doing are one, Seer and seen are one, self and not self are one. Consciousness appears to have a Subject (one who's conscious) and Object (what Subject is conscious of) but in reality subject and object are one thing, there is no self and not self, no ego. It's a hierarchy that is shattered when you realize both arise together from Tao.
#

[Dennis Mahar]

jupiviv

Imputing meaning would mean that something already has inherent meaning. Ultimately all things have only one meaning, and that can neither be imputed nor taken away.

Buddha didn't talk about the Absolute, nor did Nagarjuna.
Buddha said 'I am superior to Brahman'.
Meister Eckhart took the same stance when he said something like 'if there was a choice between God and Truth, I would choose Truth'.
Neitschke said God is dead, make the earth our meaning.
Worshipping, praying to God, fearing God, trying to please God doesn't produce fully functioning adults.

These guys, in their wisdom, are actually master psychologists of individual and group dynamics.
They looked out on humanity and saw stupid, fearful, errant children.

How to get that result of fully functioning adults was the task.
the radical transformation.

By steering a path between nihilism and essentialism which is 'emptiness',
the individual and group could be properly awake and cognisant in the situation.

It is completely useless and counterproductive talking about God.
God is not a thing.
To thingify God with properties and characteristics in a conceptual structure is madness.
It keeps the group and individual in perpetual infancy.
A power crazed priesthood gets set up that exploits the infants mercilessly and keeps them bound in infancy.

the fact that all phenomena (relative existence) is produced out of causes/conditions and is ultimately of no account,
immediately implies a domain of Absolute,
we can only have a notion of that,
to pull out a string of names to attach to it is deluded.

an adult acts for the benefit of all beings.
that is the meaning for adult human beings as a possibility in a universe of no intrinsic meaning.
Fuck God.

[SuperMegaUltraGenius]

What you say is articulate and thought provoking. But one thing I don't quite grasp is what distinguishes nihilism from 'emptiness' they seem almost to signify the same thing.

[Cathy Preston]

Yes, I do know what is going on in the mind of the wolf by relatedness of being sentient. To deny relatedness of sentience, to me, is more insane than is denying that reasoning can purify the mind of emotionalism. It is no different that the relatedness I experienced with my son or daughter when they cried for the breast. If I had taken the stance which you propose, which is to say I was only projecting my awareness of suffering on my babies, well, needless to say, they would not be alive today. Once upon a time I tried to convince myself that I was just "projecting" suffering onto the animal realm, but now, I realize that is just what I was doing, trying to convince myself. A broken leg is a broken leg, animal or human. You can reason your broken leg into being repaired, no such luxury is afforded the wolf.

As for everything being of God, including the "thing" of suffering, sentience, I acknowledged this truth in my previous post. I await, with a clear mind, freed of greed, freed of lust, freed of delusion, caused by God, to cause me to be made aware of suffering's end. So far, God has caused me to be aware of the cause of suffering, sentience, and to experience suffering's truth, compassion by relatedness. What comes next, if there is a next, is yet to be revealed. Hope springs eternal.

Not relate to the suffering of all sentient beings? Human denial, human vanity, plain and simple.

What do you mean by suffering? If I break my leg of course I'll feel pain, but it's temporary, when does discomfort turn to suffering? A wolf isn't thinking oh woe is me look my leg is broke, feel sorry for me dam I'm suffering so bad. Animals get over their pain, or they die, humans carry it around with them as suffering. You seriously equate hunger pangs to suffering? When I get hungry I eat, and when the baby gets hungry I feed her. There's no suffering involved what so ever. So you envision a world without legs and without stomachs, forget children, interesting.

[Dennis Mahar]

What you say is articulate and thought provoking. But one thing I don't quite grasp is what distinguishes nihilism from 'emptiness' they seem almost to signify the same thing.

nihilism is the annihilation position,
that existence has no redeeming features,
completely pointless,
may as well slash the wrists,
defeat.

emptiness means constant transformation and the opening up of possibilities of form.
it means the possibility of wisdom or the application of reason by man, who as a form, is endowed with reason and imputative power.

wisdom is a force that bears the fruit of influencing conditions in such a way that suffering is minimised for the benefit all beings.

nihilism has no possibility.
emptiness is possibility.

the word emptiness seems to provoke an image of desultoriness which is not the case.
it means phenomena lacks inherent existence,
is therefore transformable.

[SuperMegaUltraGenius]

Ah so its like emptiness is the neutral (and only reasonable) attitude to life, between negative and positive. pessimistic and optimistic. nihilistic and essentialist?

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes, and as such is referred to as the middle way.

suddenly,
words have meaning and actions have meaning.
consequences are apparent.
in that way wisdom arises concerning consequences.
the play of causality.

[Pam Seeback]

What do you mean by suffering? If I break my leg of course I'll feel pain, but it's temporary, when does discomfort turn to suffering? A wolf isn't thinking oh woe is me look my leg is broke, feel sorry for me dam I'm suffering so bad. Animals get over their pain, or they die, humans carry it around with them as suffering. You seriously equate hunger pangs to suffering? When I get hungry I eat, and when the baby gets hungry I feed her. There's no suffering involved what so ever. So you envision a world without legs and without stomachs, forget children, interesting.

Cathy, I discovered what the Buddha discovered, which he first revealed in his first discourse on the noble truth of suffering, which he summarized with the statement: "the five constituent groups (of mind and body) that provide fuel for attachment are suffering." So often seekers of truth in the Buddha's words ignore the depth of what he is saying which is that it is not just attachments that must cease if suffering is to be ended, the woe-is-me attitude of which you speak, the human psychological condition, but that the fuel that causes attachments must also be ended, the condition of mind and body, the condition of perception. Which means that the end of suffering does indeed mean the end of legs and stomachs and children.

The Buddha's discovery of how to end suffering is simple naked truth, but simple naked truth that is, for most, very difficult to accept for obvious reasons. Because so often cessation of perception is equated with nihilism, loosely defined as being without objective meaning or purpose, it merits saying that the one who becomes the ceasing one or the reconciling one is wholly filled with objective meaning or purpose. What could be more meaningful, more purposeful, more noble than to bear the cutting off of suffering at its root so that all beings of perception benefit, not just human beings?

[Pam Seeback]

Which leads to me expand upon my previous statement

As for everything being of God, including the "thing" of suffering, sentience, I acknowledged this truth in my previous post. I await, with a clear mind, freed of greed, freed of lust, freed of delusion, caused by God, to cause me to be made aware of suffering's end. So far, God has caused me to be aware of the cause of suffering, sentience, and to experience suffering's truth, compassion by relatedness. What comes next, if there is a next, is yet to be revealed. Hope springs eternal.

to say that it was my own fear of the death of perception that caused me to post my ignorance above. I am grateful for wisdom and compassion.

[Cathy Preston]

So you're back to death as the only peace. You have some kind of a god complex, imagining your sacrifice will end the suffering of all beings. Your desire is your own undoing.

dhammapada-347

Those who are lust-infatuated fall back into the swirling current (of samsara) like a spider on its self-spun web. This, too, the wise cut off. Without any longing, they abandon all suffering and renounce the world.

354. The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering.

359. Weeds are the bane of fields, desire is the bane of mankind. Therefore, what is offered to those free of desire yields abundant fruit.

[jupiviv]

Buddha didn't talk about the Absolute, nor did Nagarjuna.

If you think that they didn't then you haven't understood them. They spent their whole lives explaining the Absolute.

Those who think the unreal is, and think the Real is not, they shall never reach the Truth, lost in the path of wrong thought. - Dhammapada.

There is nothing to be denied and nothing to be affirmed. See the real correctly, for he who sees the real correctly is released. - Nagarjuna.

By steering a path between nihilism and essentialism which is 'emptiness',

This is not what I understand by emptiness. Emptiness is not between inherent existence and non-existence.

It is completely useless and counterproductive talking about God.
God is not a thing.
To thingify God with properties and characteristics in a conceptual structure is madness.

I'm not thingifying God. You seem to have a repulsion towards the word "God."

the fact that all phenomena (relative existence) is produced out of causes/conditions and is ultimately of no account,
immediately implies a domain of Absolute,
we can only have a notion of that,
to pull out a string of names to attach to it is deluded.

There's nothing wrong with giving names to the absolute, as long as you know what those names mean.

an adult acts for the benefit of all beings.
that is the meaning for adult human beings as a possibility in a universe of no intrinsic meaning.
Fuck God.

What do you mean by acting for the benefit of all beings?

[Dennis Mahar]

If you think that they didn't then you haven't understood them. They spent their whole lives explaining the Absolute.

My understanding is that when Buddhism is stripped of beliefs what is left is emptiness, impermanence, nonself.

those teachings refer to phenomena.

2 truths concerning phenomena.
conventional reality where things are deemed to exist from their own side,
and,
the ultimate reality of phenomena,
that phenomena is causes/ conditions and lacks inherent existence and is empty from its own side.

what they're talking about is form.
form is empty,
and empty is empty because empty can only exist where there is form.
Nagarjuna's tetralemma collapses form and then collapses empty,
giving rise to an ineffable silence in which no assertion can be made.

later scholars, Dignaga and his pupil Dharmakirti felt that the preceding was insufficient and the project should be taken forward.
they recognised to push forward would require an examination of the viability of inference.
seven treatises were constructed concerning valid cognition (inference).
Dignaga pronounced all things empty and having the character 'lordly' as well, which gets it into Absolute domain.
Who knows?

Buddhism doesn't believe in a God or outside superpower overlooking proceedings which is generated by the the idea of the Absolute.

It's easy to see phenomena is empty,
God requires a leap of faith or inference.

for Dignaga and Dharmakirti to claim emptiness to be insufficient and for them to realise that to proclaim things as 'lordly' is an exercise in inference,
indicates the general agreement that emptiness refers to the ultimate reality of form and is not talking about absolute existence.