But you don't sound like you understand that much about your own mind yet. Dissolution of affectivity is not being demonstrated by violence against even simple sentence structure, logic, reasoning and proper discourse. All those twists and aborted sentences express more like a hurt and a fix, a way to ban affliction by repeat, by empty words, by the fantasy of teaching anyone, to calm the nerve ends. What is shown is a troubled mind, although as well an unusual sensitive and intelligent mind perhaps, once, which ran into trouble and found a string of "fixes", a set of convictions and tricks which could wipe the black board. But it has to be maintained since it's not based in understanding. And you're maintaining it right here and in your class. You have to! It's not philosophy at all upon examination but it uses that language and some of the books to give it cover.Dennis Mahar wrote:It lacks inherent existence. That recognition dissolves affectivity in the form of afflictive emotion. The conceptualising mind is understood.
But you're twisting the story around here to benefit your own belief. The story tells with some detail about failure with material wealth, marriage, extreme asceticism, begging, yogic meditation achieving "high levels of meditative consciousness" but also deprivation and self-mortification. He rejected all that in the end. Although the self-mortification brought some collapse, some insight, like Nietzsche embracing that horse in Turin perhaps. And that brings hope because in communication you're self-mortifying as well as method for some "high consciousness" which might not be what you think it is.Dennis Mahar wrote:The Buddha sat down by the tree disgusted because all reasoning failed him to that point.
But nothing there in Buddha's conversion at all about any reasoning "failing'. If anything only now he ventured into finding "truth" and started teaching "pathways" using the language of reason and introspection. Only written in a specific way to relay and memorize it easier. In modern times we don't need to speak and write that way anymore.
There's nothing to "see" beyond names and forms. One can reason beyond it though. Essence, understanding, path and liberation of ignorance.Dennis Mahar wrote:It's about the object appearing, an object-oriented philosophy. Seeing thru the names and forms.
