Crucifixion

[Cathy Preston]

Anything less than this is, to me, is not liberation.

Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.

[Pam Seeback]

Anything less than this is, to me, is not liberation.

Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.

I hear the compassion in your words, thank you.

I have figured out the way of my liberation, and like most people who post on this board, I come to share my way. I found some perfect words this morning that embody my way, which I will share. If you, the reader, hear the sound of enlightenment in these words, blessings, if you do not, blessings. They are from "The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying" by Sogyal Ringpoche from his chapter on mindfulness/meditation:

"Christ, supreme poet, lived truth so passionately that every gesture of his, at once pure Act and perfect Symbol, embodied the transcendent."
~ Lewis Thompson

To embody the transcendent is why we are here.

Transcendent = emptiness.

[Dennis Mahar]

The experience of being rooted in Jesus or Buddha which are conceptual frames.
The palpable experience of paying homage,
of being indebted to,
in debt.
pulling quotes that look like pep talks inducing a 'pink cloud'.

of dwelling in conceptual frames.

'in a neck of the woods'

isn't that bounded?

what exactly is transcended?

I'm just looking at this experience of hanging on to 'ground'.

It looks like something has to be 'given up' in one's soliloquoy.

[Dennis Mahar]

You probably won't answer that post Pam because from how you've got us enrolled in your way of being is you have a compassion rule.
No perceived compassion by you, no response.
Is that a fair call?

Consider this.
Nagarjuna's concepts do not inherently exist.
They are vehicles.
They are not 'the answers'.

They are an invitation for consciousness to open up to consciousness.

They are a vehicle to clear light,
a possibility for human being,
a condition of no questions, no answers.

They disclose the trick of consciousness imputing inherent existence on appearing objects.
Imputing inherent existence produces aversion or attachment.

one can 'be in love' with appearances but that breaks down.

one can 'be love' with appearances.

that distinction 'be love' with appearances doesn't break down relatively, in dependence on whatever the activity is of the appearance.

The distinction 'be love' gets it that there's nothing to fix, be wary of, it's a naked presence where masking isn't.
There are no 'the answers'.

You've had 'be love' flood your mind?
even for 5 minutes?
No Q&A in it is there?

[Pam Seeback]

The experience of being rooted in Jesus or Buddha which are conceptual frames.

Not them, the thought pattern of their flawless wisdom.

The palpable experience of paying homage,
of being indebted to,
in debt.
pulling quotes that look like pep talks inducing a 'pink cloud'.

Not even remotely true. One needs to get passed the religious idea of Jesus and the Buddha before they can absorb the life of their words of spirit/emptiness.

of dwelling in conceptual frames.

'in a neck of the woods'

isn't that bounded?

Every sentient mind is, by degrees of 'stickiness', bound to emptiness. Did you not just invite Cathy to share a story of nothing with you? I don't know what the content of that story would be, but I do recognize the content of the stories that the spiritual masters tell, and it has the same characters and same plot of different names, that of the nameless Ground and the named path and of their relationship to one another.

what exactly is transcended?

While speaking in spirit, or giving life to emptiness, one transcends their awareness of causes and conditions. They are actualizing being emptied of these things, they are expanding their awareness of the Ground wherein no cause or condition can be found.

I'm just looking at this experience of hanging on to 'ground'.

I'll offer my insight here, yours to accept or reject. You are hanging onto Ground rather than being expanded of Ground because you are stuck on your stickiness of recycling the same idea over and over again: "it's empty and meaningless." By giving life to Ground by way of words Jesus and the Buddha and Lao Tzu gave life to emptiness, to spirit, making it fully Who They Were, which allows others to see in themselves, the same life of spirit, of emptiness.

It looks like something has to be 'given up' in one's soliloquoy.

Eventually, death takes everything that is born, including one's soliloquoy as you call it. Until that happens, however, the man who has realized the unborn within himself, needs a way to express this story. Bottom line is that a human sentient mind cannot exist without thoughts - why not think/write of wholeness, the light, rather than think/write of causes and conditions, the darkness of relativity/fragmentation?

[Pam Seeback]

You probably won't answer that post Pam because from how you've got us enrolled in your way of being is you have a compassion rule.
No perceived compassion by you, no response.
Is that a fair call?

Not a fair call. I do not need someone's compassion in order to respond to their thoughts. I read your post, drafted an immediate response, but didn't post it. It simply didn't 'hit the target.' I came to the computer this morning with the express purpose of 'hitting the target'. Acknowledging Cathy's compassion was simply that, an acknowledgment of compassion.

Consider this.
Nagarjuna's concepts do not inherently exist.
They are vehicles.
They are not 'the answers'.

They are an invitation for consciousness to open up to consciousness.

Is that not what I am suggesting in my post above? Ground is expanded by languaging Ground. Being transparent to the transcendent.

They are a vehicle to clear light,
a possibility for human being,
a condition of no questions, no answers.

Spiritual stories are a vehicle to clear light, yes, a condition of no questions, no answers, yes, a possibility for human beings, yes.

They disclose the trick of consciousness imputing inherent existence on appearing objects.
Imputing inherent existence produces aversion or attachment.

one can 'be in love' with appearances but that breaks down.

one can 'be love' with appearances.

that distinction 'be love' with appearances doesn't break down relatively, in dependence on whatever the activity is of the appearance.

The distinction 'be love' gets it that there's nothing to fix, be wary of, it's a naked presence where masking isn't.
There are no 'the answers'.

You've had 'be love' flood your mind?
even for 5 minutes?
No Q&A in it is there?

Love floods my mind for most of the day. In writing of this love, there are no questions, nor are there answers, only the language of love flowing forth. This, to me, is to embody the transcendent, to let one's light of unconditioned awareness shine.

To be able to speak and write of the experience of being flooded with love prevents one from drowning in the flood. It gives form to the formless, transparency to the transcendent, substance to the invisible. There was a time when I was convinced that I would be overwhelmed by my being flooded by love, swept away by the sheer wonder and awe for that which is beyond questions and beyond answers. Again and again I would turn away from this flooding, again and again I would return to rationalizing my reason for existence. What I discovered is that speaking and writing of reason holds back the floodgates of love, a necessary step while one's Ground of clear light is being expanded, but once one has realized the potential of languaging love, of being grounded in love, of standing unmoving in love, there is no longer a need to act as the gatekeeper of flooding. This is why I have always said that the reasoning mind is not the pinnacle of enlightenment.

You said above that Naragjuna's concepts are to open the consciousness, which, as I stated, is also my understanding. Also of my understanding is that when one is opened totally, when one is flooded with love completely, when one is able to stand without falling even one degree on this totality of being opened and being flooded, that one enters into a new dimension of 'being' or 'seeing', the end of the cycle of rebirth into reason and love. This is not some fanciful story of life after death, this is an exacting path of following the breadcrumbs of light of the law of Ground's projection of appearance and of Ground's gathering up of Its appearance. Spirit must move, spirit must expand: loving is the way of expansion beyond questions and answers - reasoning.

UnUnconditional Love, therefore, is The Answer. :-)

A video I made a few days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dyAEH0e1U&feature=plcp

[Cathy Preston]

First of all, was I compassionate? Really it depends on your perspective, someone else might say I was being a smart ass, who is right? Are both perspectives right or valid (which pye talks about in another thread) or is the tone of the response even relevant or was there even a tone there? Taking things in context is sensible, the problem is we add our own context, MA added the context "compassionate" and as a result the context supersedes content.

The content was:

Yes of course, you have the answer already now you just have to figure out how to get there.

If we already have the answer are we seeking truth?

Reason, is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

If we don't like where reason is taking us is it logical to just say reason fails

What I discovered is that speaking and writing of reason holds back the floodgates of love

If the answer is Unconditioned Love as MA asserts, then seeking truth is irrelevant.

This is why I have always said that the reasoning mind is not the pinnacle of enlightenment.

That MA's pinnacle is untenable and thus leads nowhere escapes her. That emptiness itself is empty and meaningless means there is NO GROUND OF BEING, thus there's a clear-cut ontological basis for the way things exist, and that basis is causes and conditions, reasoning or seeking truth is therefore ongoing and has no boundary.

[Pam Seeback]

Cathy: If we already have the answer are we seeking truth?

If the answer is Unconditioned Love as MA asserts, then seeking truth is irrelevant.

What is the point of seeking truth if we don't accept the answer when it comes? How can an answer that one lives by, for and within, in this case, unconditional love, be irrelevant? If what I am saying about unconditional love being the way to expand beyond the human realm does not jibe with your idea of truth, no problem.

That MA's pinnacle is untenable and thus leads nowhere escapes her.

How can awareness of something/anything lead nowhere? Is it not always now?

That emptiness itself is empty and meaningless means there is NO GROUND OF BEING,

Does not the Buddha speak of the born and the Unborn? Does Jesus not speak of the carnal or natural mind and the spiritual mind? Both are empty of inherent existence, but that does not mean they are the same experience of awareness. 'Standing' in the ground of the unborn, whether you choose to speak of it metaphorically or you choose to remain silent is the way the born is ended.

thus there's a clear-cut ontological basis for the way things exist, and that basis is causes and conditions, reasoning or seeking truth is therefore ongoing and has no boundary.

When you can reason the truth of the cause of your awareness so that I can clearly see this cause, you will convince me that reasoning or seeking truth is ongoing and has no boundary.

[Dennis Mahar]

If the TV is on what's the form and the content.

Turn the sound off and the picture on you get ceaseless activity.
Turn the picture off and turn the sound on and you get existential meaning.
Turn the sound on and the picture on and you get ceaseless activity and existential meaning.

transmitter, transmission, receiver are said by Nagarjuna to lack inherent existence.
Nagarjuna argues the non-existence of transmitter, transmission, receiver ultimately.

While we watch the transmission we can assign meaning.
we can say and agree,
oh, that action is spiritual.
oh that action isn't spiritual.

if we like spiritual we can take that on and do that activity.
we can get involved.

[Cahoot]

Emotions are the mind silently shouting.



(note to voice) ... tune the volumn.

[Cathy Preston]

What is the point of seeking truth if we don't accept the answer when it comes?

You didn't get the answer.... rather you:

What I discovered is that speaking and writing of reason holds back the floodgates of love

You didn't like where not having the answer was taking you so you disregarded the possibility of understanding and just slid into your comfort zone.

Love is the same old push pull by sensation, understanding transcends even love.

[Cathy Preston]

There is no ground of unborn! Earlier in this thread you asked Dennis how being bound by causes and conditions is the definition of freedom, but there is nothing separate from causes or conditions, nothing to be bound in the first place. You draw yourself in as existing apart from causes and conditions, in the same fashion as you pencil in unconditional love as the answer.

When you can reason the truth of the cause of your awareness so that I can clearly see this cause, you will convince me that reasoning or seeking truth is ongoing and has no boundary.

Do you think you would be aware if you were not born? Would you be aware if you did not have a brain? Would you be aware if there was nothing to be aware of?

I once read a Buddhist monk talking about emptiness and he missed the mark of it completely, saying it's simply a way to "feel" more spacious and compassionate, which though they may well be side effects they are not the main point by a long shot, and if you aim for them you miss emptiness completely. The same with unconditioned love, loving all things is a side effect of seeking truth, but it is not the goal nor can it be the target.

Also, loving all things and unconditioned love are not the same thing.

[Pam Seeback]

Cathy: Do you think you would be aware if you were not born? Would you be aware if you did not have a brain? Would you be aware if there was nothing to be aware of?

The gift of reasoning one's existence is that it brings you to the object of your truth seeking, which is the conclusion or understanding that in order to be born, there must be awareness of being born. Can you explain to me how else can 'you', however you define 'you', appear as a body if there is not present in your awareness, the thought of body appearance? Words attributed to the Buddha, words that for myself, I have reasoned to be sound and without fault:

the Buddha: 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. (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994)

the Buddha: "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." — SN 15.3

the Buddha: "And which birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." — SN 12.2

the Buddha: "Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba [the being-to-be-born] is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs." — MN 38

the Buddha: "In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair." — SN 12.64

the Buddha: "With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.'" — SN 35.28

The Buddha was clear, to be born is to suffer, to realize one's unborn nature is to be liberated from the suffering of being born.

Love is something born, it is the comforter, it is the sustainer, it is the food of the obedient and disciplined student of birth-thought-purification.

[Pam Seeback]

Cathy, being liberated of the mental effluents of the born [the out-flowing of the mind] is a gradual gnosis:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html

Of particular note is step five of six, the step of renunciation, which demonstrates the difference between the activity of reasoning into insight and the activity of love for that which has been reasoned into insight, "the leaping up at", "the rapture and pleasure of...":

the Buddha: "So it is, Ananda. So it is. Even I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, thought: 'Renunciation is good. Seclusion is good.' But my heart didn't leap up at renunciation, didn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace. The thought occurred to me: 'What is the cause, what is the reason, why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'I haven't seen the drawback of sensual pleasures; I haven't pursued [that theme]. I haven't understood the reward of renunciation; I haven't familiarized myself with it. That's why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace.'

"Then the thought occurred to me: 'If, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I were to pursue that theme; and if, having understood the reward of renunciation, I were to familiarize myself with it, there's the possibility that my heart would leap up at renunciation, grow confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace.'

"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation..." — AN 9.41

[Cathy Preston]

Yes the task is done, final and complete. That one will never again be born; not to remain unborn but to never be in the first place, not one thing can I claim as my own, as me, not one thing.

[Pam Seeback]

Yes the task is done, final and complete. That one will never again be born; not to remain unborn but to never be in the first place, not one thing can I claim as my own, as me, not one thing.

Cathy, since we last spoke I have released my attachment to love, to use my own metaphors, I have crucified love on the cross of the unborn.

It is flawless reasoning that attachment to form will never be again once the unborn has been realized [attachment = the born], but it is flawed reasoning to deduce that when the unborn is realized that one will never again be [of form]. It is also flawed reasoning to form a 'first place' when no beginning of form can be found.

Emptiness realization is not the absence of form, it is the presence of all forms, unseen and seen. The form 'human mind' did not appear in a vacuum of forms, nor will there be a vacuum of forms when the human mind disappears.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Really interesting Buddha quotes..

Can someone link me to the best available compilation of everything to read directly or indirectly from Buddha? I have read the main texts but there seems to be more.

Do you think we will not be re-born upon death if we are completely detached?

What happens if so? Nothing? A higher existence? How did Buddha know you don't return if he relayed this info while alive?

[Dennis Mahar]

John,

perhaps you are living out of a conceptual construct.

perhaps you need to come to the ontological domain of the being of human being.

perhaps you have to climb out of the realm of language/concept.
climb out on top of language and look out from there at the world and your life.

Have you ever had conversations where you have gone 'round and 'round the mulberry bush trading concepts with someone, tossing concepts at each other,
this kind of event can arise mostly for people in a relationship breakdown,

at some point both parties break thru',
realising to speak another word would be to speak complete nonsense.

any language/concept of any form whatsoever be it justifications, excuses, explanations, promises, insults, threats,
survival options, psychological assessments is totally void of significance.

there is no speaking possible other than speaking for speaking's sake, that speaking would be utterly useless in that place.
What arises at that instant is a non-conceptual understanding.
what is realised is the ontological domain of being of human being that is the always/already ineffable silence that language gets carried in.

there are no 'the answers'.

If you 'get' that you get void.

How's that for a concept?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Dennis, you are much too mysterious, metaphorical, and intelligent in your writing. I am a simple man, remember to be straight forward when writing to me at least.

I understand how provisionary language is and that it is only pointing out the direct experiences of others, but I think there are "the answers."

To word it better, do you think that upon what we call "death" there is simply another sensual life, ( as our awareness seems to constantly return to sensual experience), or, that due to the non-desire and non-attachment for sensual existence, it can be left for...something else, as the Buddha described.

In my opinion, our sensual existence will last forever, aka, is there an escape or not?

It doesn't matter if language is pointless and even imaginary, the question stands as the most important.

[Pam Seeback]

Really interesting Buddha quotes..

Can someone link me to the best available compilation of everything to read directly or indirectly from Buddha? I have read the main texts but there seems to be more.

Do you think we will not be re-born upon death if we are completely detached?

What happens if so? Nothing? A higher existence? How did Buddha know you don't return if he relayed this info while alive?

SOW, a link to a site of the Buddha's teachings of the original school, that of Theravada Buddhism [Pali Canon] which I have found to be excellent; included in the site are comments about the teachings: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ Here you will find everything recorded of the Buddha's words. All of my quotes above came from this site.

I have reasoned that once one is purified completely of their attachments, there cannot be a rebirth, for birth is the experience of attachment. Reasoning also reveals that since sentience is required for attachment, when attachment is ceased, sensory experience also ceases.

[Dennis Mahar]

You were never born how can you die.
What are you going on about lad?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

dennis

yes I know, what I mean by "death" is a change of sensual experience.

the Buddha on the other hand talked about an end to the cycle of existence. A breaking from here, or entering into a higher existence.

Saying that he had reached his final round of rebirths, that upon death he would not return here due to his non-attachment to sensual existence and overcoming of it and suffering.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Movingalways

Yes that is exactly what I meant. Death seems to be the ultimate detachment. But how do we know we don't simply return? How did the Buddha know?

It seems unlikely to me that after what I'm assuming is infinite existence before this sensual life, that I have reached the end of it now. The end of these repeated rebirths.

I think I will be seeing forever, progression or what might be called a higher existence would simply be to witness higher divinity, greater thoughts, greater understanding, greater consciousness.


I have also discerned that since we seem to be a minds eye gazing into the creations of consciousness, and have no hand in forming them... that the underlying consciousness can also see through our minds eyes or souls.

Manifesting experiences without experiencing them hardly seems plausible.

We are not children of, but one with.

[Dennis Mahar]

yeah, human being always wants more of this or less of that,
not this, not that,

let's go shopping.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Never follow you..