The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:54 pm

-The Buddha Gautama, translated from Zen Buddhist texts, sourced from here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb08.htm

"The Blessed One, knowing of the mental agitations going on in the minds of those assembled (like the surface of the ocean stirred into waves by the passing winds), and his great heart moved by compassion, smiled and said: In the days of old the Tathagatas of the past who were Arhats and fully-enlightened Ones came to the Castle of Lanka on Mount Malaya and discoursed on the Truth of Noble Wisdom that is beyond the reasoning knowledge of the philosophers as well as being beyond the understanding of ordinary disciples and masters; and which is realisable only within the inmost consciousness; for your sakes, I too, would discourse on the same Truth. All that is seen in the world is devoid of effort and action because all things in the world are like a dream, or like an image miraculously projected. This is not comprehended by the philosophers and the ignorant, but those who thus see things see them truthfully."

.....

"Since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the multitudinousness of external objects, cling to the notions of being and nonbeing, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, and think that they have a self-nature of their own, all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and from which they are given over to false imagination. It is all like a mirage in which springs of water are seen as if they were real. They are thus imagined by animals who, made thirsty by the heat of the season, run after them. Animals, not knowing that the springs are an hallucination of their own minds, do not realise that there are no such springs."

......

"In the same way, clinging to the memory of erroneous speculations and doctrines accumulated since beginningless time, they hold fast to such ideas as oneness and otherness, being and nonbeing, and their thoughts are not at all clear as to what after all is only seen of the mind. It is like a man dreaming in his sleep of a country that seems to be filled with various men, women, elephants, horses, cars, pedestrians, villages, towns, hamlets, cows, buffalos, mansions, woods, mountains, rivers and lakes, and who moves about in that city until he is awakened."


The Buddha Gautama was stressing that all the things of the world, objects and people, have no existence of their own, and exist only there in that sense experience, the same way the things in a dream have no existence of their own but exist only within the minds experience.

Life is a dream, most scientific theories have completely misinterpreted reality, they are still based on the assumption that objects do in fact have an external physicality of which our brains are receiving information and interpreting into our sensual experience.

This is completely false as our perception and idea of a brain itself exists only as another of these illusory dream like experiences within mind. Just as your body is a sensory illusion, so is the brain and the idea that the brain is the cause of our consciousness.

All experiences and ideas, all knowing and seeing of the universe, exists only as sensual forms emanating from the mind, the mind being the source of all things.

You don't need eyes to see, a body to live, or a brain to think, those things exist only as different manifestations of the mind's miraculous sensual experiences.

When people hear this and talk about the need for evidence of some sort or deny the possibility it's ultimately pretty funny, it's like waking up in a dream, knowing it's the stuff of dream through realization, waking to it, seeing it, and then having the people around you defend against this ultimate and undeniable truth :b


I'm just helping to clean up the fundamental understanding of ultimate reality on here a little bit as many have been a bit messy and ignoring this even after all the allusions, metaphors or straight-forward explanations the sages have given on this subject.

You really have to clear yourself of all the past delusions, presumed knowledge, and pre-conceived notions some scientific minds might have forced on you at a younger age.

I hate to see some beginners like Pincho Paxton explaining his perception of reality like this:

"I don't share your perception, it is your own individual perception. I see sphere everywhere, and the sphere touch to become hexagon, and the hexagon touch to become snowflake, and the touching, and bumping finally change the snowflake into the physics of a man shape, and a cat shape, and a dog shape. But what was there all along was the sphere shape. The sphere shape is to blow from a hole to make a particle. The universe is therefore a froth, a bunch of holes, and a bunch of sphere."

Or even some more "advanced" philosophers with sloppy thinking like this:
David Quinn
"Whether it be billiard balls crashing into each other, or the plasma movements inside stars, or the neurons firing inside the brain to create conscious thought,"


What I'm trying to point out is, don't forget to keep it in mind! It is easy to get caught in particulars and manifestations and believe them to be real or true outside of a shallow and dream-like existence, even the most aware fall into those habits! I will be working to make this more commonly known, so we can properly keep in the mind of not-knowing, no mind is more open than an empty one.

Do not worry, for the experiences of your body effect your essence not:

'And one should understand, according to reality, and true wisdom:
"This does not belong to me; this am I not; this is not my Ego."'
-Buddha Gautama


Do you get that these words aren't my own? That it is not truly "me" writing this nor "you" reading it? I have no control over my "self" John Farhat, and you have no control over your responses or reactions.

"The Tao follows only it's own will"


Do not trust your thoughts in the same way you used to! Examine them, view them non-judgmentally and you will see how easily the mind attaches rationality to the irrational, how foolishly it falls for the tricks of illusory forms and illusory explanations.

To recognize the thoughts are not your own is the height of wisdom.

I guess I do have to add.... be in constant recognition of the Tao/ which is "mind", which you are part of, the divine source of the universe ( the universe is actually sense experience) and it will guide you... in a sense, things will fall into place if you let them, get used to change, don't try to hold on to what isn't even there.

From now on I'm going to be open about the fact of my enlightenment as should every other enlightened being on this forum: Who would you rather people were listening to, you or pincho?

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:36 pm

this:
Do you get that these words aren't my own? That it is not truly "me" writing this nor "you" reading it? I have no control over my "self" John Farhat, and you have no control over your responses or reactions.
then:


in a sense, things will fall into place if you let them, get used to change, don't try to hold on to what isn't even there.
You are saying I have no control.
then I have.

insert standard reply here: 'language is provisional'.

Did the Buddha have a track of reasoning that enabled him to see what he saw?
If so,
what is it?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:16 pm

Seeker, you're not really helping. You're creating actually a bigger mess because you're not in control over your language and definitions. You seem to care little about it and your current philosophy inhibits you to worry about it much. That's why I oppose it, not the gist of your ideas but the nihilistic approach you appear to be stuck in without realizing it much. You might think Pincho is a beginner but just by raising the topic it seems you're unsure about yourself and lack trust in your own mind. It's best to return to being beginner again and again. The only "expertise" you're ever going to get is in mastering the expressions themselves but not in "enlightenment", whatever you might think that is.

For example "life is a dream", yes, but it's still a dream not random static noise. This means it has a certain story board, a setting, some actions involved. No matter if you think you are doing it or not. It doesn't go away if you look away. Within your particular dream you have still imagined a definite "divine source of the universe", the existence of something you call "sense experience" without knowing what it is you are naming and you have a place where things can fall into and come together. This sounds like you have still "primal cause" going in, still thinking "sense experience" is something in particular (not the world) and you clearly demonstrate the need for meaning and destiny as things are "coming together". These are all notions which have to be examined if you want take your ideas all the way instead of sitting with them in a niche you're trying to carve out.

Now the question is if you're going to take this on board or if you are still going to try to put yourself above all others, being too stubborn to admit you're still young, rash and rather stupid, although still wiser than I was at your age, I must say, so that's not actual criticism just the most obvious and natural situation. It's also the age we often start embracing some internal faith or vision more easily than later on.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:37 pm

The important thing is how he came to understand that form is empty.
Who he was talking to.
Who showed him.
He won't answer that.
Some truthfulness in the matter would be appreciated.

spruiking form is empty is fine,
yet it has to be seen empty is empty.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Russell Parr » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:36 am

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Life is a dream, most scientific theories have completely misinterpreted reality, they are still based on the assumption that objects do in fact have an external physicality of which our brains are receiving information and interpreting into our sensual experience.

This is completely false as our perception and idea of a brain itself exists only as another of these illusory dream like experiences within mind. Just as your body is a sensory illusion, so is the brain and the idea that the brain is the cause of our consciousness.
It is not completely false, scientific theory is very useful under the context of our experiencing of physical reality. It cannot, however, explain the fundamental nature of reality; that is where philosophy and logic are particularly useful.

I sense that the reason you rail against science as much as you do is because you're still subconsciously attached to using a scientific method to understand and explain the nature of reality. Just as science operates with the assumption of an inherent property of the object of observation, you assume the inherent existence of an object of your own observation: "mind," or "sense experience." This causes an inner confusion in which you've learned to not trust science altogether, because it represents something that is inconsistent with your own scientific theory.

If you would trust your logic more, you could fully leave 'scientific theory' as it is, and move on to deeper philosophic understanding. You would realize that your notion of "sense experience" is just as much of a product of the "dream" as all other observed phenomena.
All experiences and ideas, all knowing and seeing of the universe, exists only as sensual forms emanating from the mind, the mind being the source of all things.

You don't need eyes to see, a body to live, or a brain to think, those things exist only as different manifestations of the mind's miraculous sensual experiences.
You're just changing the context and definitions of "seeing," "living," "thinking." At root, all forms of seeing, living, and thinking are illusions of sense experience.. your continual reference to this metaphor makes it seem that you're attached to some longing for life to be something more than just a product of sense experience. This too can cause some inner confusion in one's philosophy.
What I'm trying to point out is, don't forget to keep it in mind! It is easy to get caught in particulars and manifestations and believe them to be real or true outside of a shallow and dream-like existence, even the most aware fall into those habits!
Yes those habits can be hard to shake.. one might continue to believe that "mind" and "sense experience" are not just "particulars and manifestations."
I guess I do have to add.... be in constant recognition of the Tao/ which is "mind", which you are part of, the divine source of the universe ( the universe is actually sense experience) and it will guide you... in a sense, things will fall into place if you let them, get used to change, don't try to hold on to what isn't even there.
Wrong, the Tao is not mind. The universe is not sense experience. Sense experience is sense experience. Realizations of mind and sense experience are manifestations of abstract thought, while reality itself is without seams, without sources.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:12 am

A common problem shows up when people get a clear glimpse of ultimate reality.
The ordinary/everyday world looks disgusting.
They give up their jobs.
Drop out of their University courses.
Criticise their families/friends for wasting their lives.

Ultimate Reality has been made meaningful in that case.
ordinary/everyday world looks meaningless.

the persons mind is split between 'I should be doing something' and 'what's the point of doing anything'.

there was a problem showing mothers 'ultimate reality' because when they realised their children were not who they thought they were but merely projections on a base, the mothers were aghast.

others, realising money has no intrinsic reality go on stealing sprees.

Making a huge big deal out of ultimate reality, having a huge emotional response about it is giving it too much meaning.

ultimately,
its empty and meaningless.

and,

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.
there's no point making a big deal out of it.

Schopenhaeur drifted in to nihilism.

Nietzsche realised Schopenhaeur was being ridiculous and countered that nihilism with 'let's make our meaning the Earth'.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:04 am

to put 'ultimate reality' in a box over here and assign it characteristics, properties and functions.

and to put 'ordinary/everyday world' in a box over there and assign it characteristics, properties and functions.

is to have a 'boxing match' or conflict.

its still thinking inside the box or just another box to think inside of.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:24 pm

Dennis, I like what you said in your last two posts because it is my experience that assigning too much to ultimate reality is a step that most everyone takes on the way to resting in its wisdom of emptiness. Most certainly this has been my personal experience.

It's a weaning process. :-)

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:29 pm

Dennis, I didn't say you don't have control and then say you have.....I'm saying you do have control...that's it having control... "you" don't have control. Paradoxes really, and yes, language is provisional haha.

And surely the Buddha did not have a track of reasoning that allowed him to see what he saw because it's not reasoning or the rational mind that brings about those realizations, reasoning is where you make flaws, seeing without all that thought is when you really see.

"Who showed him.
He won't answer that.
Some truthfulness in the matter would be appreciated."

Why do you assume some particular person brought this about in me? It started through beginning to realize life was dream-like in the sense that future events seemed to have been effected by my previous thoughts and feelings, along with practicing lucid dreaming and not to mention that I spent a lot of time staring at objects like the wall wondering about their existence only to really clearly start to see the waviness/illusory depth perception we have. Originally I wrestled with solipsism and couldn't find a reason to dispute it, then after a while I realized that this whole thing being my dream is just as unlikely and absurd as it being a shared dream, so I went with shared, after trying to tell people about this, and it not going very well, I eventually came across a Buddha quote which completely affirmed what I knew, meaning I could be sure it wasn't simply some craziness in myself as it is the same conclusion Buddha came to.

"Ready?
are you up for this?
hold on to something tight.
its a shocker."

Its empty and meaningless, that its empty and meaningless, that its empty and meaningless.

Wouldn't you agree? Thus philosophy is empty and meaningless but we've gotten over that because it's empty and meaningless.

Diebert, I have not imagined a "definite" divine source of the universe because for that to happen I would have to be imagining some idea or concept when I think "divine source", but what is actually happening when I say this in my mind is simply a recognition of what's right in front of me. Also I'm not calling sense experience the source of the universe, I'm saying the word "universe" actually means "sense experience" as "universe" is made up of "sense experience".

I do care little about definitions because it is much easier to read without those definitions, eg. when I say something as short, general, and vague as "Life is a dream", I'm actually being more clear than if I were to add a definition.

This is because everyone knows what "life" is through direct experience, and what a "dream" is through direct experience, so my vague statement is one portraying a very clear and simple philosophy: Life is a dream.

If you want a more detailed explanation, go stare down a really long corridor for a while haha.

"naming sense experience without knowing what it is your naming", what I'm naming is "all my experiences of reality", the feeling of hot, the feeling of cold, thought, sight, sound, those feelings that make up everything you've ever known, every thought and concept, that is "sense experience".
"This". There's a good definition for you :b

No meaning or destiny besides being in recognition, things come together and fall into place due to being in recognition and ceasing worrying about if they will come together and fall into place or not.

And you are mistaking me being "rather stupid", for a lack of knowledge, that's a mistake, if intelligence was based on knowledge I am one of the worst and dumbest philosophers you know, for example, I don't know the definition of the word "ontological", but, I may well be one of the few people who aren't "rather stupid". I am aware my ability to communicate effectively or debate effectively in philosophy isn't very good, it would take at least a few years more reading for me to be at the same level as some of you guys, but I am sure that what wisdom I do have won't alter in that time.


bluerap

I was calling the idea of interpreting information from an external physical world using our brains completely false. Science is very useful for manipulation of reality, and as you say not useful for understanding fundamentals, it provides a logical basis in our minds through which we can achieve anything we can rationalize. Your 6th sense was wrong in that second paragraph tho because I'm not the scientific method type, I'm a feeler or sensor rather than a reasoner, it only becomes scientific once you start trying to describe what shouldn't really be described.

"You would realize that your notion of "sense experience" is just as much of a product of the "dream" as all other observed phenomena."

I already realized this, "All experiences and ideas, all knowing and seeing of the universe, exists only as sensual forms emanating from the mind", meaning that all concepts and ideas, including my labeling of "sense experience", are also simply more of these illusory dream-like experiences, all of these thoughts,concepts, and words exist only as far as they are perceived and are only as logical as we perceive them to be.

I have not assumed inherit existence of sense experience, I am only saying it exists as far as your seeing of these words, that is correct, try not to get caught up in my sentence structure or the specifics of my language.

"You don't need eyes to see, a body to live, or a brain to think, those things exist only as different manifestations of the mind's miraculous sensual experiences.

"You're just changing the context and definitions of "seeing," "living," "thinking." At root, all forms of seeing, living, and thinking are illusions of sense experience.."

What are you talking about here man? I've just said that seeing, living, thinking, and even the brain, exist only as illusory sense experiences, and all things exist only as illusory sense experience, over and over, then you've gone on to say I'm changing the context as they are all only illusions of sense experience... I don't think we are disagreeing here, I think instead we are saying the exact same words :b

"Wrong, the Tao is not mind. The universe is not sense experience. Sense experience is sense experience. Realizations of mind and sense experience are manifestations of abstract thought, while reality itself is without seams, without sources."

The Tao is mind. The universe is sense experience, look at your chair, it's part of the universe, it exists only in sense experience. Do you know of another place that chair exists but your seeing/feeling/etc of it? No, it exists only in your sensual experience. Reality is with a source.

"Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity."

Clearly here the "tao" definer, states there is a source.

"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,"

So.. the Tao is the source... and all things are an expression of it, all things are part of it, they spring into existence.

Where does that reality I enter when I'm asleep spring into existence from? Mind. Where do all my experiences of the universe come from? Mind.

"The mind is everything" - Buddha

"the Tao is everything"- Lao Tzu
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:13 pm

Pam,
old dogs like us don't need new tricks.
it seems new dogs need old tricks.
my new puppy was barking persistently between midnight and 6 am which got the neighbours in uproar.
I had to get an electronic necklace for her for the night time which delivers a mild electric shock whenever she barks.
It has stopped her barking.
It's knocked her about a bit psychologically, she seems to have lost a bit of confidence and verve.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:22 pm

John,
the buddha spoke on many different levels with respect to what the audience he was speaking to could handle.
this led to confusion.
400 years later Nagarjuna sorted out the mess.

2 truths.
Box 1. conventional reality.
phenomena appears to have inherent existence.

Box2. ultimate reality.
a logical investigation of phenomena discloses no phenomena exists inherently.

what is permanent is the emptiness of inherent existence.

conventional reality and ultimate reality do not exist separately.

thinking out of box 1 is not the true story.
thinking out of box 2 is not the true story.

bring the 2 boxes together and think outside the boxes.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:26 pm

Where do you end up Dennis?

Dream, illusion, existing only in our sensing, emanating from an unknown source.

Did I miss something? I think I just said the only things I know to be true

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:46 pm

find something meaningful.

not really speaking for tomas. but it looks like what he is saying is,
his girl and him have found comfort and pleasure in each other's company and have so for a long time.
also it seems tomas is aware its only for the time being.
one or other might die before 6 o'clock.
you don't know the when of dying but you will die.
also, tomas might be kicked out of the house tomorrow and told not to come back.
there's no guarantees.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:56 pm

Dennis: what is permanent is the emptiness of inherent existence
Knowing this, we can rest in the permanence of awareness and go on about our business of being sentient beings. Before enlightenment, clean the bathtub, go shopping, cure cancer, see how good I am? After enlightenment, clean the bathtub, go shopping, cure cancer.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:03 pm

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Where do you end up Dennis?

Dream, illusion, existing only in our sensing, emanating from an unknown source.

Did I miss something? I think I just said the only things I know to be true
John, the contents of the source is unknown until they are known by the senses; there is no separation between what is unknown and what is known. This truth is the same for an unenlightened person as it is for an enlightened person, the only difference being that the latter is aware of this truth and is changed by this truth.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:06 pm

I spoke at length with a burglar once who claimed to be in an enlightened condition.

He didn't want to work and he wanted material pleasures and didn't want to cause bodily harm.
He thought self-centeredness isn't a problem.

He argued that people didn't have real existence nor did their valuables.
He stole their valuables and 'fenced' them.
He figured the only crime is getting caught.

What about that?

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:22 pm

Pam,
Knowing this, we can rest in the permanence of awareness and go on about our business of being sentient beings. Before enlightenment, clean the bathtub, go shopping, cure cancer, see how good I am? After enlightenment, clean the bathtub, go shopping, cure cancer.
Yes.
That's Pye's argument too, that it boils down to worldly matters.
She says we should love which I take to mean care for each other.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:26 pm

Moving, there is a separation between what is known and unknown, the truth is known, it is only the truth to an enlightened person, it is seen but not recognized as truth by the unenlightened person, it's just gibberish.
Dennis Mahar wrote: one or other might die before 6 o'clock.
you don't know the when of dying but you will die.
also, tomas might be kicked out of the house tomorrow and told not to come back.
there's no guarantees.
Like trying to hold on to water using your hands in a rushing stream, doomed for disappointment.

Finding something meaningful isn't related to our understanding of existence. It is not a mix between box 1 and box 2, it is the complete eradication of box 1 for an understanding of box 2 that requires no "logical investigation". Best singular word to communicate the nature of ultimate reality: dream, everyone dreams, everyone knows it's a manifestation of the mind, everyone knows the objects in a dream have no inherit existence, and not one single person had to make one logical deduction to know those things, the man without philosophy,thought or language knows those things.

A set of exercises is what we need: The best one I've found is a very dark but just barely visible room, observing the difference between having your eyes closed and having them open - eventually people recognize it's just a changing screen, if they can sit for long enough.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:38 pm

everyone knows it's a manifestation of the mind, everyone knows the objects in a dream have no inherit existence, and not one single person had to make one logical deduction to know those things, the man without philosophy,thought or language knows those things.
You think so?
why all the suffering in the world then?

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:44 pm

Wow wow wow, I mean't everyone knows those things about dreams :b

They don't know it about their waking state.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:18 pm

Wow wow wow

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:27 pm

You implied that I was implying everyone knew it about day to day life, which they don't, and I didn't imply, don't repeat my wowow's next time biatch, night dennis

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:25 am

Dennis writes: Yes.
That's Pye's argument too, that it boils down to worldly matters.
She says we should love which I take to mean care for each other.
I'm compelled to interrupt listening in order to write, lest this reduces what you think I mean to a Beatle's song . . . .

"Love" is not prescription/recommendation, but rather description of the condition of all. No squishier than Empedocles, who looked to the attraction-repulsion principles as the difference between there being something rather than nothing. Until I can see a real, qualitative difference between the attraction/mergence/creation of energy into matter and the attraction/mergence/creation of human mating into new human beings or new human configurations, and all the way to the attraction/mergence/creation of the sage who seeks nothing less than this with the all, then I maintain this reductionism as apt. It is the definition of infinity that makes/creates/destroys/remakes ad infinitum a world at all; mergence and remergence again and again moving always . . . .

We're already caring for one another; we're already "attached" in our various degrees and ways - embedded in and embodied as world. Existence does not need corrected. That is when your mountain comes back; your bathtub gets clean, cancer gets cured . . . . And contrary to Seeker, I find our longest and most dangerous hangover from the surfeit of consciousness to be our notion of its supremacy; our demotion of everything it takes for its own objects (as mere "material"), and the abject disingenuousness of that. I can't grasp the "planes" people talk about - material planes, spiritual planes and the like - It's like living near a noisy airport . . . .

So to your "should" love and care for one another, it already is, and as Dennis already knows, the attraction/mergence/creation thingy I'm talking about is the happy helpmeet to your joyous disclosure of being . . . .

The historical downgrading of the physical, material world (i.e. the world) has its roots in the flesh of our suffering, hence the suffering over our suffering, and this, in my estimation, is a childhood boo-boo from which someday we might heal. A thought is a thing as surely as is any thing; the presence of consciousness is not geometrically separable from its host or the world of all-being in which it appears. There is only existence. And there is only existence when there are 'things' into which it keeps becoming.

User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Kunga » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:40 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:Pam,
old dogs like us don't need new tricks.
it seems new dogs need old tricks.
my new puppy was barking persistently between midnight and 6 am which got the neighbours in uproar.
I had to get an electronic necklace for her for the night time which delivers a mild electric shock whenever she barks.
It has stopped her barking.
It's knocked her about a bit psychologically, she seems to have lost a bit of confidence and verve.

You fucker !
How would you like it around your neck....ASS HOLE !!!

You don't deserve to have a pet.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:08 am

(Thanks, Kunga. This was the next thing I was going to go on about . . . . )

Post Reply