The Buddha - Fixing Up Philosophy

[Bobo]

After witnessing enough animal and pet abuse one gets to be happy it's just a temporary shock collar they are using. It shows actual care for a workable solution and there's not always a better alternative available to the owner in the world out there. Just count your blessings that you all your dogs always responded well to normal care but don't put that assumption out there as law.

What do you know about dog's psychology? You are just showing your ignorance and your compliance with it.

[brad walker]

Does a dog have Buddha nature?

[Bobo]

Does a buddha have Dog nature?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

After witnessing enough animal and pet abuse one gets to be happy it's just a temporary shock collar they are using. It shows actual care for a workable solution and there's not always a better alternative available to the owner in the world out there. Just count your blessings that you all your dogs always responded well to normal care but don't put that assumption out there as law.

What do you know about dog's psychology? You are just showing your ignorance and your compliance with it.

Just realism Bobo and awareness of all the suffering out and in there. It all puts automated tingling dog collars a bit into perspective. And as for animals, I'm actually shockingly good with them and they with me but for "hopeless" cases it's most of all time that is required. And this is why I said the modern life his not very compatible with pet dogs. So it's not the collar I'd oppose but the way people think they can live their lives without dedicating themselves seriously to the "engagements" they have entered with owning a pet.

[brad walker]

Does Nature dog a buddha?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert writes: There's something neurotic and debasing about transforming an animal in a domesticated pet, indoors and alone.

Yes, I've thought this before about human domestication as well, and its larger scale of collective neurosis. We'd have to say there is something "neurotic" about taming any thing, and since the whole aim seems to be the mutual benefits of socialization (animals, too), "neurosis" appears to be one of the outgases this taming produces. It's all well and good to stand on our hindquarters against this process applied to [by the way, already-long-domesticated] animals, but I've yet to meet any true human anarchist willing to make the trade off of their own social comforts for native wildness.

One possibility here is that adaptations are always painful, neurotic and generally a crazy situation for all involved. It's quite possible wild dogs came to us, not the other way around. Now our fates our bound and like the choices of parents can rain down on the kids, even more so with pets. Another view here could be that connections trump any notion of innocence. Or how fates can become intertwined.

I'm ovo-lacto vegetarian, the occasional undeveloped nervous systm of an egg; the fermented milk of goats/cows, and it has been this way for over 25 years.

I guess I'm ovo-lacto-pisco but still considered vegetarian. Fish for thought! Although I don't bother others with it so when visiting someone I'm sometimes still eating meat products. Strangest thing is that at some point I started to dislike meat varieties altogether, one by one. It's not quality food anymore to me at all. I think that process took a few years but then the what I believe to be the mainly psychological element of meat eating appeared to be suddenly gone.

We just have to do better than button-pushing solutions, stupid as we have become in our all-answering faith in them.

Try to get through a day without pushing any. Perhaps start with only two a day :-)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You mean the cause of your awareness, the cause of you experiencing "now".

A lot of people think they know exactly what they are referring to when saying "table" or "chair", it's right there, right now, that thing which makes up me experiencing table and chair. Are you sure you are not doing the same thing?

Yes I'm sure I'm not doing the same thing because I am not talking about the cause of me experiencing "now". I am talking about the simple fact that there is experience. Didn't I already change it from "sense experience" to just "experience"? I am referring to that thing you wake up to every morning and go to sleep to every night. Existence/awareness/experience.... included are, sight,hearing,thought,perception, etc.

I'm talking about the experience of "life". How fuckin general do I have to be to get you to understand that I am referring to that one and only thing we know 100% to exist: experience.

My sense is that you are using the terms differently, that is you are aware of the illusions but are not reasoning enough why they are and where it stops.

I'm aware of the illusions but your absolutely correct, I have absolutely no clue "why they are", do you know why? and what do you mean by "where it stops?

[quote="Diebert van Rhijn"
You are not able to make the case that the whole of reality (the all) is completely depending on your or anyone's sensual experiences (always a part). Because it would mean sensual experiences of consciousness are the totality. With this logic can help to destroy the mistake: consciousness is defined by identifying a part in relation to the whole. It's defined by not knowing the whole otherwise it could not be consciousness. And since for complete dependence one has to regard them as equal terms, the whole of reality cannot be dependent or being equal to consciousness. Instead the rising and falling of consciousness remains an integrated part of everything. [/quote]

No not mine or anyone specifics sensual experiences, those are parts of one whole. But, I can make the case that the whole universe (everything we know of, including all experiences and dreams) exists only within experience (as "universe" or "matter" = experience of the senses,etc). It would fall to whatever opposition I had to try and prove/evidence/reason that anything exists outside of experience, which they would fail at doing, the only thing we know is consciousness, do you know of anything else? I'm not saying nothing exists but the human experience of consciousness, there are probably infinite experiences of consciousness of all different kinds, all I'm saying is that the universe(all those galaxies and earth) exists only within experience of consciousness, having no independent existence outside of experience.

We are like formless eyes gazing into experiences of consciousness with no control over what we witness, those experiences are literally what we call "the earth" or "my body", just experiences, nothing more.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am referring to that thing you wake up to every morning and go to sleep to every night. Existence/awareness/experience.... included are, sight,hearing,thought,perception, etc.

I'm talking about the experience of "life". How fuckin general do I have to be to get you to understand that I am referring to that one and only thing we know 100% to exist: experience.

Don't worry, its' well understood. Some just use terms like awareness or attention as there are things we can conclude our body experiences without us realizing. But this was of course about "it's all a dream" in this very context. No matter how uncertain and relative the context of the experiences are or how certain the fact of experiencing is, it doesn't say anything about how to handle all the dream-experiencing. The mind keeps arising and still has to differentiate between real/unreal and truth/false. It's what it does, it's how it moves. It's doing that in a dream or simulation just as well as anywhere else it moves. In other words: one cannot help creating realities no matter if one is dreaming or not. And the mind still differentiates, tests, validates and so on.

I'm aware of the illusions but your absolutely correct, I have absolutely no clue "why they are", do you know why? and what do you mean by "where it stops?

Aren't you in the same boat then as everyone else who doesn't really know what some thing really is, the how, the why, its beginning or ending?

But, I can make the case that the whole universe (everything we know of, including all experiences and dreams) exists only within experience (as "universe" or "matter" = experience of the senses,etc). It would fall to whatever opposition I had to try and prove/evidence/reason that anything exists outside of experience, which they would fail at doing,

Everything we know exists in our knowledge like everything we experience exists in our experience. But "knowledge" or "experience" has no place to exist in then? You say you don't know why it is but at least you could realize that if "everything" exists only within experience, that experience needs to exist also somewhere? How can it be an object to your perception? How would you see it unless you realize how you are seeing?

the only thing we know is consciousness, do you know of anything else?

But consciousness is not some singular state. It implies subject and object. It supposes contrast. What is consciousness (or experience for that matter, or sense) if there's not something else to be conscious of, to experience, to sense? It's in the relation between the duality that consciousness is possible. In itself it couldn't exist in any meaningful way.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The why: no clue, do you have any?
The How: no clue, do you have any?
The what: More of a clue ( I am aware of it more/understand it better)
beginning and end: Those are only illusory ideas of an illusory dream, that's how I know there wasn't a beginning and there won't be an end, because those two concepts don't mean anything except in relation to specific experiences beginning or ending, such as "Diebert experience", never experience in general.

I would be in the same boat as everyone else if I didn't know what I know and didn't know what I don't know, but I do.

"experience" has no place to exist in then? You say you don't know why it is but at least you could realize that if "everything" exists only within experience, that experience needs to exist also somewhere? How can it be an object to your perception? How would you see it unless you realize how you are seeing?"

Experience doesn't need a place to exist or any reasoning, experience is self-evident. There is experience, that experience does not correspond to any external reality that I am interpreting, but rather I am a formless witness to these changing and frankly miraculous experiences.

Consciousness does not imply subject and object, and experience does not imply there is something that needs to be experienced, as the things experienced exist only in that experience.

If I had to put it clearer, mind/imagination is what exists, you are part of that mind/imagination, witnessing things being imagined.

Can you notice what I mean when I say: in your last few sentences you tried to give boundaries to the term "experience", implying that for there to be experience, something existing has to be experienced, but that's wrong, experience is what exists, and all things experienced exist only within that experience, like a dream :b

You see the table, there is no table, only the seeing of a table which spawned without reason, without any kind of explainable source, only from that unknown void of imagination you are experiencing, that's all you know, can you go further than that?

Experience exists in one place, right in front of you, in the seat of mind, there is no way to describe where or how experience exists because "experience" makes up everything. Including all ideas and concepts related to experience, or any ideas that experience needs to have some platform or that for experience to exist there must be objects/things to experience.

[Bobo]

After witnessing enough animal and pet abuse one gets to be happy it's just a temporary shock collar they are using. It shows actual care for a workable solution and there's not always a better alternative available to the owner in the world out there. Just count your blessings that you all your dogs always responded well to normal care but don't put that assumption out there as law.

What do you know about dog's psychology? You are just showing your ignorance and your compliance with it.

And this is why I said the modern life his not very compatible with pet dogs. So it's not the collar I'd oppose but the way people think they can live their lives without dedicating themselves seriously to the "engagements" they have entered with owning a pet.

Whence ignorance.

Just realism Bobo and awareness of all the suffering out and in there. It all puts automated tingling dog collars a bit into perspective. And as for animals, I'm actually shockingly good with them and they with me but for "hopeless" cases it's most of all time that is required.

Here's compliance.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Experience doesn't need a place to exist or any reasoning, experience is self-evident. There is experience, that experience does not correspond to any external reality that I am interpreting, but rather I am a formless witness to these changing and frankly miraculous experiences.

There's is no "formless witness", there can be none but as long as it helps you to get by...

Consciousness does not imply subject and object, and experience does not imply there is something that needs to be experienced, as the things experienced exist only in that experience.

That's just because you haven't looked far enough into it yet. It's not hard to see what you're saying and it's very good but I can also see it's not taken far enough. This is where you need to think twice and not pretend you have arrived anywhere or taken a firm position because you haven't.

Can you notice what I mean when I say: in your last few sentences you tried to give boundaries to the term "experience", implying that for there to be experience, something existing has to be experienced, but that's wrong, experience is what exists, and all things experienced exist only within that experience, like a dream :b

No, not something "in existence" would be experienced (I didn't say that) just that any existence embodies both: the one experiencing and the one experienced. Neither of them is "existence" by itself and therefore it's a mistake to think as one of them as real and the other as false.

Experience exists in one place, right in front of you, in the seat of mind, there is no way to describe where or how experience exists because "experience" makes up everything. Including all ideas and concepts related to experience, or any ideas that experience needs to have some platform or that for experience to exist there must be objects/things to experience.

Anything which makes up everything is like nothing, it cannot be described or experienced. But all the while you still have created two: one place and the rest, one reality and the dreams.

[guest_of_logic]

I do really think your comments are the bigger evil of the issues here.

That's simply perverse, not to mention offensive. Really, there are no other words for it. On the one hand is a man who has taken responsibility for the care of a puppy, and instead is electrically shocking it, on the other hand are people speaking out against this abuse, and you see fit to label one of those speaking out as "the bigger evil". I don't even care to continue this discussion if your view is that twisted. I would use stronger words, but not in public. In the information and communication age, Dennis has access not only to his inner resources but to the resources and expertise of others. There are no excuses for choosing a "solution" so barbaric as he has chosen.

I don't own the circumstances.
I deal with it.

Here's your chance to demonstrate your authenticity and well-meaningness, Dennis. I trust you to deal with it in a kinder, more humane way.

Laird are you a vegetarian?

That depends on your definition. I eat only raw fruit, seeds and nuts.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You can whine all you like then, you have the right.

No offence, just pointing out you could be using your time better or on bigger issues.


Really? That sounds awesome, does it give you all required nutrients? Is it the healthiest way to live, and why did you start eating only those?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That's simply perverse, not to mention offensive. Really, there are no other words for it. On the one hand is a man who has taken responsibility for the care of a puppy, and instead is electrically shocking it, on the other hand are people speaking out against this abuse, and you see fit to label one of those speaking out as "the bigger evil". I don't even care to continue this discussion if your view is that twisted.

You are the one treating someone who saved a puppy from certain death and protected him against neighbor aggression with emergency measures as being "prick", "indefensible" and "abusive". No, I really think you are the puppy killer: death by ignorance and then of course blame the evil in others! Nice job, Laird. Of course your beliefs are the bigger evil here, the question is if you can recognize it.

I would use stronger words, but not in public.

Yes of course, the daggers will be cloaked and used in the dark behind my back. Why not just try to be honest and upfront with what you really think?

Today I was reminded elsewhere that the single difference between the animal and the human is that the human can cloak and deceive. Intelligence probably came from the practice of lying and camouflaging. The "brave" hunter gatherer: always setting up traps to lure his victim inside. The social structure can only exist because of deception: a man is convinced he is needed or required by someone else, he is tricked into believing his destiny and his fulfillment is here or there, something in need of saving perhaps. Then he progresses to defend this lie, to guard the secret, to become hostile to truth itself unless they are truths which do not threaten the lie.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Diebert

It isn't me that has created that distinction between waking state and dreams, in fact it is me professing their oneness and common essence/kind, where is it that I was making this erroneous speculation?

"it's a mistake to think as one of them as real and the other as false."

And where was I thinking of one as real and one as false?

What I'm saying is that those things aren't two, you split them into "subject and object", but it is just one being distinguished as multiple or dividing the experience based on manifestations.


'"Consciousness does not imply subject and object, and experience does not imply there is something that needs to be experienced, as the things experienced exist only in that experience."


"That's just because you haven't looked far enough into it yet."'

Point out what I haven't seen yet, if it's true that I've missed it I'll recognize it. You don't think I'm aware there are steps/levels to this? If I haven't reached one somewhere, just say the deeper understanding frankly and I'll understand it, don't just point it out without elaborating, that doesn't mean anything.

In fact, to speed things up, say all the levels you know of so I can gain awareness of whichever one's I don't yet have and can contemplate them.

"The social structure can only exist because of deception: a man is convinced he is needed or required by someone else, he is tricked into believing his destiny and his fulfillment is here or there, something in need of saving perhaps. Then he progresses to defend this lie, to guard the secret, to become hostile to truth itself unless they are truths which do not threaten the lie."

This is good, what I was doing before was applying this same understanding to our knowledge and rationalizations, we are simply fitting most of our knowledge to our experiences trying to rationalize them with illusion, every statement is as illogical as the next.

There are the deeper understandings, one's that go beyond the delusions and flawed conclusions, this knowledge is so fleeting and elusive that it can't properly be grasped by thought, this is the kind that talks about the delusion.

For example, I know that in any world at any time, it is always correct for me to convey the meaning that: we are simply fitting our delusions to our experiences, whatever seems like it fits better is what we perceive as true, rationalizing the irrational, the statement that seems to fit is just as illogical as the one that doesn't seem to fit. I repeat again, the only real knowledge is the knowledge that talks about the illusion/appearance: the knowledge that can't be denied, the knowledge of the ignorance of our knowledge. This to me is the most important and vital of all the wisdom that has been passed down, it is relevant to every conversation, every speculation, and it is, in one word, "deep".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It isn't me that has created that distinction between waking state and dreams, in fact it is me professing their oneness and common essence/kind, where is it that I was making this erroneous speculation?

If waking state and dream have a common "essence" and are one then why call reality still a dream? It would be also awakeness according to your own professing.

And where was I thinking of one as real and one as false?

"Life is a dream" but "sense experience" is "100% existing".

What I'm saying is that those things aren't two, you split them into "subject and object", but it is just one being distinguished as multiple or dividing the experience based on manifestations.

But I'm not the only one splitting things in two. If you'd carefully study your sense experience and the appearance of that 'witnessing' you'd understand better the divide I'm trying to describe.

For example, I know that in any world at any time, it is always correct for me to convey the meaning that: we are simply fitting our delusions to our experiences, whatever seems like it fits better is what we perceive as true, rationalizing the irrational, the statement that seems to fit is just as illogical as the one that doesn't seem to fit. I repeat again, the only real knowledge is the knowledge that talks about the illusion/appearance: the knowledge that can't be denied, the knowledge of the ignorance of our knowledge. This to me is the most important and vital of all the wisdom that has been passed down, it is relevant to every conversation, every speculation, and it is, in one word, "deep".

"From the deep Atum becomes by projecting himself into existence through masturbation". I'm not kidding, I was just reading Egyptian ancient texts regarding "the primordial hill". The knowledge doesn't seem new or even difficult but perhaps it can be forgotten?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

'"And where was I thinking of one as real and one as false?"


"Life is a dream" but "sense experience" is "100% existing".'

Where is the flaw here? You have assumed I think that dreams don't exist? Life is a dream, (dream meaning illusion existing only of the mind), and our "waking state" (which has been wrongly distinguished from our "dream" state by language, don't blame me, there is no actual distinction here, the words have no difference to me, but they still have a meaning, and that meaning is, "existing only of the mind itself, like something imagined, like a dream")

"If you'd carefully study your sense experience and the appearance of that 'witnessing' you'd understand better the divide I'm trying to describe."

Which divide? What is object of experience and what is subject? There is no existence of a "witness" so don't think that me saying "witnessing" is implying one.

And I didn't quiet follow that last part, all I got was that the Egyptians were saying something absurd.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

'
"Life is a dream" but "sense experience" is "100% existing".'

Where is the flaw here? You have assumed I think that dreams don't exist? Life is a dream, (dream meaning illusion existing only of the mind), and our "waking state" (which has been wrongly distinguished from our "dream" state by language, don't blame me, there is no actual distinction here, the words have no difference to me, but they still have a meaning, and that meaning is, "existing only of the mind itself, like something imagined, like a dream")

But all you do is saying now that "life" also exists and everything in it is real since the mind is its source and the mind is real. It's like saying the water is an illusion but the bowl containing it is real. But if I move the bowl you see the non-existing water behave exactly like water as if it's there. So I think what you try to say is that "water" doesn't exist inherently, that without the bowl it wouldn't be anywhere in any meaningful sense. A great insight. But that's something else than saying the water itself does not exist or that the bowl would still exist if it didn't contain something, some volume at least. That would be the same mistake like the one just dismissed as error!

There is no existence of a "witness" so don't think that me saying "witnessing" is implying one.

How is the witnessing being witnessed? Perception of any kind will create its own shadow. Just because the shadow is behind your back doesn't mean it cannot be there.

And I didn't quiet follow that last part, all I got was that the Egyptians were saying something absurd.

It was about something I was reading just minutes before you mentioned "deep". It's about certain old Egyptian texts which I believe to be helpful as philosophical tool as it pictures complex ideas. This one was about Nun, the primordial chaos or nothingness, "the surface of the deep" like in the second verse of the Bible, from where Atum comes into existence by distinguishing itself from the deep. Now we have the primordial hill.

It's just a different type of language addressing primal ideas on our being. The imagery could help in cases where words are not ready yet or are not working.

[guest_of_logic]

That sounds awesome, does it give you all required nutrients?

Yes.

Is it the healthiest way to live,

I have no idea. There are a lot of fruitarians who think so though. Then again, many, perhaps most, people who choose their diet carefully will tend to think it's the healthiest.

and why did you start eating only those?

For ethical reasons.

----

Diebert, I see you've even found a way to spin self-restraint as a negative. Abuse of puppies is defensible, those who believe otherwise are evil, self-restraint is "defending a lie", those who speak out simply and directly are playing an "intellectual game" - I think you have a career in the circus as a contortionist. While you're there, maybe you could help train the animals. You know, if Bessy the elephant doesn't want to climb up on the stool, a little prod with Mr Electric Wand might help her see the way. After all, if she won't perform, then the zoo will have to dispose of her, so really, you'd be saving her life.

What I "really" think is that your defence of the electric shocking of young animals is ugly enough, but for you to then go on and paint those speaking out against it as *worse* is utterly contemptible. Utterly contemptible. I have no respect at all for your rationalisations and doublespeak.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think you have a career in the circus as a contortionist.

It's interesting when I look up the topic on the Internet, the strong emotional reactions are fairly commonplace. Nobody peeps that much about common leash jerks though. But the amount of information is often not very accurate and people talk about different things and degree of usage mixed up. Look Laird, you're just barking up the wrong tree here (pardon the pun). It's just your reaction to someone who was obviously trying to do the best thing in a circumstance which you piss vinegar all over: now he's suddenly judged a prick, pathetic and his actions cruel and offensive. Pure hyperbole I might hope!

What I "really" think is that your defence of the electric shocking of young animals is ugly enough, but for you to then go on and paint those speaking out against it as *worse* is utterly contemptible. Utterly contemptible. I have no respect at all for your rationalisations and doublespeak.

Of course not, you don't like it when someone points out your own rotten core laced with pleasant niceties and fantasy concerns over the well being of some pups who are just surviving imperfectly like all of us. If you'd have sincerely disagreed on the method you'd have started a conversation about it but I think you cared more about venting some built up acid.

[Dennis Mahar]

sometimes the 'who' in the 'who you want to be in the World',
the 'I', the personality project of oneself,
the set of considerations one deems as an access to 'goodness' for oneself,
these possibilities for oneself that one honours as ideals to uphold and 'be'.

sometimes in the circumstances,
the pressing nature of the circumstances,
where others get to have a say and to act out their drama,
and it looks dangerous.

sometimes, one has to leave off that which was what they hoped for for themselves and actually do acts foreign to who they want to 'be'.

It's a shocking 'gestalt' to have one's inauthenticity pointed out Laird and thanks for taking that on in respect to me.

Hurting puppy wasn't the project.
Curtailing puppy's behaviour that brought into being the neighbours ire was the action plan.
The electronic necklace as equipment was deemed the lesser of evils in the situation.
A remedy for the situation that is meant to thwart the neighbour from doing anything worse to puppy.

Hurting puppy isn't my 'thing'.

The 'who' in the 'who I want to be in the World' is clearly relative in nature,
is sorely tested in the circumstances,
sometimes is lost and regained.

A Zen slap is a beautiful thing.

[guest_of_logic]

That was big of you, Dennis. You're not a jerk after all, you just did a jerkish thing without intending to. I've been jerkish too, and continue to be in many ways, and I'm hard on myself too. Thank you for responding so graciously. I think I need to be more diplomatic and less accusatory in similar situations in future, as I now believe that you would have responded to that approach too, without feeling so judged.

I don't pretend to be an expert on dog psychology, but if you want help finding a humane solution, please let me know. The internet is a great resource. And if you want to hire a dog trainer or veterinary behaviourist or similar, and money is a problem, please get in contact with me privately as I might be able to help out a little with those costs.

[Dennis Mahar]

the Buddha nature is likened as to a thunderstorm,

entering into the worldliness of the world worlding.

flashing light and rumbling thunderclaps,

soaking rain and a burst of brilliant sunshine,

and so, the being of the beings in the becoming

are transformed in their possibility.

only if there's 'listening'.

You've done a good job Laird you old Zen Master you.

I'm gonna have to rescind my bid for presidential candidate.
The campaign would be dogged by 'puppygate'.
The team would be exhausted running 'hush puppy' to counter that.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You've here distinguished the bowl and the water.

The bowl and the water are part of the same canvas, they can't be separated and viewing them as two or split is error.

The appearance of mind, the bowl, is just as much of an appearance as the water, they are both just appearances, they are of the same kind, they don't differ, it is appearances that I consider real. A dream is an appearance, nothing more, can you see something, or can it appear, without it existing in some form? Appearances exist, nothing else.

There are no witnesses, only the appearance of witnessing.

That's individual witnesses I am referring to, instead there is one witness through which all the individual appearances of witnessing arise, and it isn't "John" or the "awareness of John", that's just an appearance, instead it's the common source of all these appearances.

How do I know? I state that it is impossible for the "Tao" or the unknown to manifest such appearances, such dreams and illusions, without being aware to them.

Can one imagine something without being aware of it on some level?

Universal awareness, the singular witness

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks Laird, forget about the 'rotten core' remark. That was unnecessary hyperbole from me as I meant only the attitude in a certain context. Well, I don't belief in cores anyway but there's something rotten about how the self functions: our damned soul, the wandering jew.