Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's not an argument from authority, it's not being used as evidence, it's a teaching from wise men to show you wise men were trying to teach you something.

What you need to carefully examine is your own knowledge.

For once will someone answer a simple fuckin' question,

What is energy?

What is light?

What is a photon or a quark?

Facts:
These words are labels/names.

Labels/names for what?

Things seen/experienced. <Important fact

Labels/names for sensations/feelings.

Labels/words for particular manifestations of sensations/feelings.

End of facts.

Naming is the origin of all particular things.

If all specific/particular things can't exist inherently,
how then can it be correct to act as if they are specific/particular things that exist on their own?

If you are talking about things, you are talking about things experienced,

If you are talking about things experienced as if they exist independent of experience, well, seeing the flaw here?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Did you guys ever consider, that there is more to learn?
(unlearn)


Enlightenment = liberation from delusion and a delusional way of being. (Including suffering)

Do you know what it means to liberate oneself from delusion?

It means the end of discrimination and falsely making assertions/negations ,
It means to stop thinking that you are you so you can start watching you.

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."

[Alex T. Jacob]

The 'victim' of the 'Gotcha' moment: Lest We Forget.
____________________________________

Master, you know that I know that you know that I don't know anything, just like you (only worse, I mean better, oh you know!). One hundred a forty-two posts back (it came like a crash) you defeated me wholly and fully. I *understood*, I *knew* and as if on a sweet breeze of indefinable *light* I was lifted out of Maya and placed, loveydovey-like, between you and Dennis. We embraced: long lost brothers! Finally, I 'gottit' (not to be confused or 'conflated' with gotcha moments or its derivatives). All it is is 'names and labels' for sense experience! It is SO SIMPLE! And when this knowledge catches on it will sweep the world!

1) Words
2) Things
3) Labels for sensations, feelings
4) [End of list of facts]
5) Naming 'creates' definite things
6) How can those things named 'exist'?
7) They can't! They can't! They don't!
9) Things seen, things experienced, are not the things.
10) Do you see the flaw here? [Oh God, yes! YES! I SEE IT!]

I am totally on your side and I formally repudiate every tricky and devious means I ever tossed up and formally admit I was in maya! I am no longer a solid man, a mistake of perception, but a wisp of fog that can move through walls, through cracks, through keyholes. I am part of the Tao and when I speak it is Tao speaking.

What you need to carefully examine is your own knowledge.

Oh man, is that ever true!

Master, I offer my obeisances to you with a sincere and empty heart. You have dispelled my ignorance.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex, you are only acting in detriment to yourself.


You are asserting that things experienced exist independent of experience. Yes? You have already agreed that this is what you are asserting.

You are wrong, it is SO SIMPLE as that.

[Alex T. Jacob]

The Seeker of Wisdom post-counter reads '776'. I got the message at right around 600. How long will it take in YOUR case, pilgrim? Reminds me of this tune.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You didn't get the message. If you got the message you would understand/agree with the message.

You don't understand at all, you haven't got the message, almost no one gets the message, that's why they make a big deal out of it, you've only read the message, there is a big difference.


Like I said, what is someone who has directly disagreed with the two enlightened guys doing on an enlightenment forum?

What is someone who still thinks the world exists independent of consciousness (Disagrees with the fundamental enlightened understanding of ultimate reality) doing on an enlightenment forum?

[Alex T. Jacob]

Like I said, what is someone who has directly disagreed with the two enlightened guys doing on an enlightenment forum?

There are at least three Alexes. To who of them are you addressing the question?

Alex Number One: Has fully accepted and understands at a cellular level exactly what you are saying. He does not only agree with you he worships you as the Dispeller of Darkness.

Alex Number Two: AKA the 'Evil Alex'. He does not consider 'enlightenment' as a valid category. Nor does he consider the whole *approach* of Eastern religious modalities as being 'considerable' in a rational context. Though quite experienced in this realm, he seems to have rejected it, and to have *returned* to a more, shall we say, 'Aristotelean' platform of knowing. However (pay close attention) he senses that this is a totally indefensible position, and this sense covers over his core 'fear' of the 'truths of enlightenment' (David got him right, right from the start: he's afeared of God!) and he mounts endlessly elaborate 'defenses' through which the Wise can see, like an lit-up aluminum garbage pail through a puff of deceptive smoke. Instead of bucking up and *owning* this (the creep), he turns devilish on us, and defends our entrapment in the clutches of Maya, becoming a spokesman for Ignorance, Unenlightened Attitude, questionable humor, and fucked up taste in music. There is always a point that he resorts to ridicule since 'the enlightened' seem to have virtually no sense of humor and they are 'perfect' therefor for it!

Alex Number Three: This is the Alex in which even I, Alex, do not believe. This Alex sees minds struggling for knowledge and certainty in a terribly confusing and shifting intellectual and epistemological landscape, and he sees young persons who have been (like all persons) substantially *attacked* by mechanical forces from all sides that, effectively, seek to possess him and control him. Everything about his *person* is brought into doubt and this leads to a terrible inner circumstance and conflict that is almost impossible to put up with. It leads to a *pressure* that requires release, andAlex often has used the term 'desperation' to describe the weird measures that people will take to relieve this pressure and to keep a schizm from opening beneath them. He 'knows' that this is one of the main uses of (what he calls) the 'Fundamentalist's Maneuver': to protect the self from attack on self and the relieve the insecurity of conditions in an ever-shifting landscape. All that he writes interweaves with these *facts*, more or less.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex Number Two: AKA the 'Evil Alex'. He does not consider 'enlightenment' as a valid category. Nor does he consider the whole *approach* of Eastern religious modalities as being 'considerable' in a rational context.

Are you beginning to see that you just don't know yet? Enlightenment forum, "I don't consider enlightenment valid or rational"

[Alex T. Jacob]

I forgot to include a soundtrack to my last post: Major Holly.

Are you beginning to see that you just don't know yet?

That's Alex Number Two isn't it? Why don't you ask him! This is Alex Number One talking!

In the meantime, check this out!

This is no part of my argument, but nice guitar work (Joe Pass I think).

[Dennis Mahar]

barnum and bailey.

tickled pink.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There are at least three Alexes.

I liked that post quite a lot actually, with all its summarizing power, it even caught the mild schizophrenia quite nicely (in the sense that such experience has always been "now more than ever, the closest equivalent to the artistic one" - Jake Horsley).

But what is forgotten here is "No.Alex" who has fallen into the schism which has always been himself. No.Alex is not divided and has no mission. He has accepted none, knows nothing of modalities and has nothing to say about mechanical forces but in a mechanical way. But he's there like I am.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Coleman Hawkins

But he's there like I am.

Doing what? Curious if you have a non-schizoid way of summarizing? We all know I'm crazy and can only speak from fragmentation!

[Dennis Mahar]

Let's get the hot out of the 'hot spud' Laird.

Forget about Spirit,
come from 'in the spirit of'.

you think QRS is 'shooting Bambi'

you think Mental Health System is 'shooting Bambi'

Its all about Bambi.

You say the things you say in order to save Bambi.

Pye gets a pat on the lustrous locks because Pye resembles Bambi.

[Dennis Mahar]

let's get something straight,
that gestalts out of absorbing Aristotle.

philosophy comes out of 'a sense of wonder',
a child-like nature.

it can generate 'Mean Old World'.

let's do a 'sense of wonder'
and listen for wonderful.

Bambi lives!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Unless you become like these children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Just going to make a GF list of people who have directly disagreed with the obvious of enlightenment, and people who have clearly understood. (Whether they differ in descriptions or not)

People who have shown a lack of what should be clear understanding: Alex, Guest, Pincho Paxton

People who have definitely shown clear understanding: Pam, Diebert, Dennis,

Look at the differences between what these people might say in regards to enlightenment/eastern philosophy.

(I've only really read from a very small amount of people)

Agree with this assessment?

How can people that don't know, learn, as long as they think they know? It isn't possible.

[Dennis Mahar]

How can people that don't know, learn, as long as they think they know? It isn't possible.

Taking the Sacred Tour means philosophy is environmental.
put all your philosophy books on the desk and sit next to them for a couple of hours.
don't read them, just sit there till it clears up.

concepts arising out of a sense of wonder.

they have a relative nature only.
none have absolute existence.

where there's form there's philosophy.
ineffable silence.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Which is exactly the point trying to be communicated or "pointed to".

That is what appears witless to them.

[guest_of_logic]

In my first response, I offered qualified agreement, trying to establish common ground whilst indicating that I have reasons for not going as far as John does:

'Strictly, I'm also sceptical of all knowledge other than the "knowing" of direct experience, but', and

'The Confucius and Socrates quotes I accept as expressions of scepticism, although'.

Was this qualified agreement enough for John though? Would he live and let live? No. He must be right. I must take back my qualifications; nothing other than total agreement with his extreme position is enough. He pulls out his battering ram and hammers away for the win. So, who is making the real attempt to "control"? When you take them out of context, my responses may seem like "gotcha", or, as Dennis, in an act of massive hypocrisy, would have it, "control drama", but in context they are simply reasonable defences against the unbending insistence of another.

You, Alex, understand this, I know (from what you post), and you hit the nail on the head with this post (the one starting with "Nice try, Laird! But you are dealing with some folks who allow themselves the 'ultimate luxury' in ontology and epistemology"), and I accept that attempts at reasoning are futile. John, in my last post, I put a direct question to you, yet you avoided it. This is consistent with your approach to date: to assert and re-assert your own views without at all listening to or responding to the countervailing views that are put to you - yet you complain hypocritically about not being listened to. If you seriously want people to engage with you, then you need to respond rather than re-assert. In any case, I'll try one more time, despite accepting that it's futile (even in futility I hope):

You write that 'not-knowing [...] doesn't say all knowledge is "false" or "wrong"'. That's good: now, does it say that knowledge is not "useful"? That's part of what I asked you in my last post. Without the use of knowledge, you would not be able to live the life you live now; knowledge is in this sense not only useful but indispensable. Do you accept this?

You continue: "just that all thoughts are illusory [...] thoughts exist only as imaginative experiences (like thoughts in a dream), and they refer only to what exists as imaginative experiences". And so? For a start, you have not proved that we live in a dream, merely asserted it over and over again, despite the two reasons I offered you in another thread to disbelieve it (or at least to disbelieve that there exists no external reality, which you seem to think amounts to the same thing), one of which I notice Alex independently offered you some time later. In any case, these "imaginative experiences", this "dream", if "dream" it truly is, are shared between billions of lives, and they are (mostly) consistent (unlike your claims, a point which Diebert has made independently). The knowledge we have of the consistent workings of the "dream" of reality is no less useful or relevant because it applies to a (supposed) "dream" than if it applied to the "really real": it is as useful in managing our lives within the "dream" as the "really real". Do you accept this?

If you had knowledge of how to literally "escape" the "dream", or to manipulate it in some "higher" way, then that would be more useful knowledge, sure, but you don't believe that there is any possibility of "escape" ("the dream" is all that there is), and the only manipulating you have been able to do is of your own personal visions. By your terms, then, the knowledge that we currently have of and within the "dream" really is the most useful knowledge that there is.

You ask "Understand?". I think I do. I just think that, even if you are right about the "dream", knowledge is still useful and even indispensable. Do you understand that?

Dennis, your nonsense about "Bambi" is an example of your own little control drama: your attempts to manipulate an advantageous (to you) but dishonest interpretation of the views and approaches of those you wish to psychologically dominate... but Alex has been pointing this out to you for long enough that I know you're incapable of recognising it. You are part of the problem, not the solution: you are a man seeking to impose himself on those who have made it clear they do not appreciate his imposition.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis, your nonsense about "Bambi" is an example of your own little control drama: your attempts to manipulate an advantageous (to you) but dishonest interpretation of the views and approaches of those you wish to psychologically dominate... but Alex has been pointing this out to you for long enough that I know you're incapable of recognising it. You are part of the problem, not the solution: you are a man seeking to impose himself on those who have made it clear they do not appreciate his imposition.

Yeah, you think I'm shooting Bambi.

Geddit?

[guest_of_logic]

See, this little "Geddit?" of yours is so blatantly a power trip that it's almost funny that you lack the awareness to stop using it. Let's see if you "get" this: I'm as opposed (in proportion/context) to unfair impositions on the President of the United States as I am to those on helpless infants. Let me also ask you something, do you "get" that you have in no less than three separate posts written so presumptuously and disrespectfully to me that, as Alex has observed, had you done so in Colombia, you should have expected a violent outcome? Do you get why?

[Dennis Mahar]

Do you get why?

Yes.
ignorance is the why.

define the Bambi I'm shooting.

the violated entity.

[Alex T. Jacob]

By being defeated we won.

We won when we lost.

We were 'enrolled' when Bambi came along.

The ineffable. Astonishing.

I recognize John and Dennis 'The Two Enlightened Guys' as my Teachers and lay down the weapon. You too Laird can be enrolled with us. Help us to help the world know what not-knowing knows.

Sitting by the stack of books, the twilight comes. I light a lamp
in my heart.
Brighter, forever.

Take the Sacred Tour with the Two Enlightened Guys and see
Empty is empty is empty is
meaningless is meaningless is meaningless
That it is

Empty
Meaningless

Ignorance is the why. The violated entity, Bambi-illusion. It's empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.

Bliss! Peace!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Laird, since posts do take time, I want you to know that everything you've been writing has been read at least a few times and I appreciate any philosophical discussion/debate, and hope that you both return the same attention and consideration.

Want to say that in my opinion the understanding I am attempting to portray to you is a fundamental realization of ultimate reality, one necessary for enlightenment and the proper grasping of the extent of our ignorance and the "witless" perception of conscious experience, (the empty minded understanding) or the "Way".

In my opinion I also, while not trying to offend, propose and stress, that, this is an important truth that it appears you have not yet come to, a deep realization one can only achieve through wakefulness and meditation, one that requires an increased awareness of your own consciousness and perception, including awareness of the self.

You write that 'not-knowing [...] doesn't say all knowledge is "false" or "wrong"'. That's good: now, does it say that knowledge is not "useful"? That's part of what I asked you in my last post. Without the use of knowledge, you would not be able to live the life you live now; knowledge is in this sense not only useful but indispensable. Do you accept this?

To answer I first need to know if you consider that the following beings are knowledgeable?
An animal, or infant suckling on teats and acting out of instinct without having to think about their actions.


It is delusion that is a disease. Non-delusion, aka, "true knowledge"and wisdom, is indispensable, that was made clear.

You continue: "just that all thoughts are illusory [...] thoughts exist only as imaginative experiences (like thoughts in a dream), and they refer only to what exists as imaginative experiences". And so? For a start, you have not proved that we live in a dream, merely asserted it over and over again, despite the two reasons I offered you in another thread to disbelieve it (or at least to disbelieve that there exists no external reality, which you seem to think amounts to the same thing), one of which I notice Alex independently offered you some time later. In any case, these "imaginative experiences", this "dream", if "dream" it truly is, are shared between billions of lives, and they are (mostly) consistent (unlike your claims, a point which Diebert has made independently). The knowledge we have of the consistent workings of the "dream" of reality is no less useful or relevant because it applies to a (supposed) "dream" than if it applied to the "really real": it is as useful in managing our lives within the "dream" as the "really real". Do you accept this?

When was the claim made that there isn't consistency?

In the light of the knowledge that the world is an illusion of consciousness, much knowledge once believed is now clearly seen to be delusion, and many actions taken become clear acts of stupidity.

But, none the less, the whole time there is a cup of water in front of you, you have the consistent knowledge that there is a cup with drink in it, and knowledge is still needed to navigate/ manipulate reality.


Now, Laird, for you to understand what is meant, you will have to answer some questions:

Is an illusion of consciousness, ( an imaginative experience or a dream, aka "world" being made up of experiences and not existing independent of consciousness) still an illusion (still an imaginative experience) if the imaginative experience/ illusion appears consistent?

Is an illusion still an illusion if it is consistent?

And,

Do you agree that when you speak of objects or things experienced such as light/matter/cup, you are simply referring to different manifestations (or particular aspects) of sensation and feeling?

After that,

Do you recognize that you are talking of these objects (things experienced), as if they exist independent of experience?

If you had knowledge of how to literally "escape" the "dream", or to manipulate it in some "higher" way, then that would be more useful knowledge, sure, but you don't believe that there is any possibility of "escape" ("the dream" is all that there is), and the only manipulating you have been able to do is of your own personal visions. By your terms, then, the knowledge that we currently have of and within the "dream" really is the most useful knowledge that there is.

You ask "Understand?". I think I do. I just think that, even if you are right about the "dream", knowledge is still useful and even indispensable. Do you understand that?

Yes, useful knowledge (aka knowledge that leads you "forward", or is required for a good life/enlightenment/happiness/ the end of suffering) is indispensable and useful.

And knowledge of the "dream" will give you a more efficient way to manipulate reality to the benefit of yourself and others, this "way" may appear absurd as it is encourages "empty mindedness"



The next question is an important one, it is designed to hopefully make you realize what I see as the major flaw in your (and all those unaware of the truth that all things exist only so far as what is seen of the mind itself) conceptualization of ultimate reality:

What are your reasons for assuming that things experienced exist independent of experience?

or

What are your reasons for assuming that things observed exist independent of observation?

or

What are your reasons for assuming that your experiences of consciousness correlate to a "material" world that exists independent of or external to consciousness?



(I am attempting to bring you to the realization that nothing exists but what is seen of the mind/what is experienced through consciousness)

Buddha's description is

"On the contrary my teaching is based upon the recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself."

And, do you refute or disagree with this apparently extreme claim? What is your interpretation of it?

Final question, do you meditate?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb09.htm <Read this, you might like eastern if you try it

Or what is your interpretation of this Buddha quote: (enlightenment forum)

"Objects in themselves are neither in existence nor in non-existence and are quite devoid of the alternative of being and non-being, and should only be thought of as one thinks of the horns of a hare, a horse, or a camel, which never existed. Objects are discriminated by the ignorant who are addicted to assertion and negation, because their intelligence has not been acute enough to penetrate into the truth that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself."

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird,

Let me also ask you something, do you "get" that you have in no less than three separate posts written so presumptuously and disrespectfully to me that, as Alex has observed, had you done so in Colombia, you should have expected a violent outcome? Do you get why?

This is particularly dishonest.
If I combed thru' your posts and those of Alex, I could fill 100 foolscap pages of examples of that perpetrated by you and Alex.

There is no 'moral high ground' for you to stand in with that argument.

It's beside the point.

The violated entity is the point.
How does it exist?