Enlightenment

[Bobo]

Looking into meaninglessness. The door for all meaning.

Life is suffering. But you know the saying, when you see a Buddha...

[Dennis Mahar]

Well, you know, if it's dependent arising, logic dictates it is disinherited of 'selfhood'.

ain't on the throne.

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
you provide the meaning.
enrolment in something.

dead set certainty.

[Leyla Shen]

There are five skandhas, not one transmutation of form and idea.

There is indeed a mountain.

[Dennis Mahar]

you've given me causes/conditions again.
what can be deduced from that?
dependent arising.
logic dictates empty of self.

[Leyla Shen]

No, Dennis, illogic dictates that.

Emptiness doesn't mean a thing is empty of any thing X, rather: all things X are empty! The self is as empty as an apple, not empty of "self".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Looking into meaninglessness. The door for all meaning.

It's also the toilet bowl for all meaning, the shower drain. Have to unclog those too regularly . Part of meaning making: the Great Unbinding! :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I foresaw you could only write or speak causes/conditions thus affirming dependent arising.

Your foresaw people replying using sentences, constructs and meanings. Wow. You cannot refute it because you have elevated yourself outside such conversation.
Looking in from "Above" (or "Below" peering from behind the drain). You have not arrived yet into a conversation and you have no plans to ever venture there.

For ever disconnecting this way! But you might imagine a "deep" conversation taking place in another realm because you're not here to question or affirm your own understandings.

[Dennis Mahar]

here we go again.
what's been provided is causes/conditions which affirms dependent arising.
what is dependently arisen doesn't exist from it's own side, under it's own steam, lacks inherent existence.
it is empty of an own self.

belief in inherent existence of phenomena is the cause of suffering.
doesn't mean phenomena doesn't exist.
just means phenomena lacks an own self because it is dependently arisen.

the joy of logic.
it is meaningless to slip 'inherent existence' in to phenomena as a characteristic.
ouch!
grasping.

[Dennis Mahar]

Wow!
it looks like ya'll broke thru'.
the wondrous groundlessness
the ineffable silence
astonishing.
a thrilling love for being.
bliss.
object-oriented.

Spirit
Mind
Body

[Leyla Shen]

Ohhh, not "empty of self" but lacks an own self!

What's an "own self", no-self Dennis?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

it is meaningless to slip 'inherent existence' in to phenomena as a characteristic.

Like you're slipping "meaninglessness" in as characteristic here. You've just added "lack" as a new inherent quality. But it's just the same error in reverse.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's your failure in comprehension.

it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
you provide the meaning.
making a meaning a possibility for existence, enrolment.
conceptualising mind.
an idea.
conceptualising mind generates environment, bodies, activities, pleasures, sorrows.

all phenomena lacks inherent existence.

a value stands out against a background of nothing or what is determined to be meaningless in effect for enrolment.
the value is shaped dependent on conditions therefore is empty.
without the conditions the value cannot arise as response, for a value is a response called forth in the conditions.
call and response.
a value is enshrined in a protection racket and 'goes to war'.

no justifiers, you make the meaning and generate out of it.
set in train.
you pay the price of enrolment.

the price I pay lad is bliss.
conceptualising mind understood.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless. You provide the meaning.

But you are not providing any meaning, you're trying to annihilate the meaning created by your "it". Perhaps you don't realize how criminal that is (but also modern, nothing personal, I know it too well).

conceptualising mind generates environment, bodies, activities, pleasures, sorrows.

Just like bodies, activities, pleasures and sorrows constitutes a conceptualizing mind. This is what dependent arising means, that it's not about one "thing" generating another. Not even "mind" or "thought". Thoughts are products just the same. Part of the whole process which has no name.

A value stands out against a background of nothing or what is determined to be meaningless in effect for enrolment.

It's how it looks like in terms of dualism. Something only can be in relation to what it's not. But that's a logical construct, not "reality". Big difference. You know the difference, right?

a value is enshrined in a protection racket and 'goes to war'.

And you are a deserter? Life is suffering or in the words of Heraclitus, not only "everything flows" but:

• We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.

you pay the price of enrolment.

Or pay the price of deserting. Pick your fate!

the price I pay lad is bliss. Conceptualising mind understood.

You might know and pay a price but you might not understand the cost. What you need to do or keep undoing to maintain the illusion.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam, what do you mean by "consciousness" in the following context:

The core point is that without subjectivity (observation, naming, analysis) objects do not exist.

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

Simply put, to be conscious of something, be it of the sense dimension or the philosophical/moral dimension, is to be conscious of oneself: mirror wisdom.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Just like bodies, activities, pleasures and sorrows constitutes a conceptualizing mind. This is what dependent arising means, that it's not about one "thing" generating another. Not even "mind" or "thought". Thoughts are products just the same. Part of the whole process which has no name.

In returning to the Taoist symbol of yin yang, everything is momentarily understood or grasped of the duality of the female and male:

Tao produces one
One produces two
Two produce three
Three produce myriad things
Myriad things, backed by yin and embracing yang
Achieve harmony by integrating their energy
What the people dislike
Are alone, bereft, and unworthy.

Dennis, what I see is that you are backed by yin, but have not yet embraced the yang. And not having embraced the yang, you project dislike for the yang.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• What the people dislike
  Are alone, bereft, and unworthy.

Good one but bit of a mysterious cut-off perhaps here? McDonald transates that verse as: "People despise being orphaned, widowed and poor. But the noble ones take these as their titles. In losing, much is gained, and in gaining, much is lost ". By the way the last verse I think is the most difficult (and that's why it was left out in the quote?)

• What others teach, I also teach: "A violent man does not die a natural death". This is the basis of my teaching.

Matt asked about this some years ago in his thread: "A violent man will die a violent death!" and there was some background and discussion provided on what I think is a major mistranslation since as it stands it's hardly any "basis of teaching". But if we take in the historical alchemical context of eternal Tao and eternal life, the translation of "violent" demonstrates the weakening of the interpretations over the centuries. Some kind of "defanging" or "deyanging"? What is said here when taken the whole verse is that "masters" or "rulers" know already that to gain means to lose, often "too much". This appears way more clear in chapter 33: the ones who knows himself, one who conquers himself and one who pushes with vigor has will. This became in another place "violent" probably because of some fear and rejection of what this would mean, as the demands seem too harsh and its reward not pleasant enough. But it seperates the sheep from the goats!

[Dennis Mahar]

here we go again.
what is supplied is causes/conditions.
you do not say anything else.
that affirms dependent arising.
every mind/body machine operates from it.
bells and whistles, pulleys and levers.


a cartoon.
biffo, bumpo.
the belief in inherent existence.

yin and yang is your weapon Pam.
you assume affectivity as if a sucker was born every minute.

[Leyla Shen]

Pam, what do you mean by "consciousness" in the following context:

The core point is that without subjectivity (observation, naming, analysis) objects do not exist.

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

Simply put, to be conscious of something, be it of the sense dimension or the philosophical/moral dimension, is to be conscious of oneself: mirror wisdom.

Okay. So, in the context of this discussion, it follows that we ponder the nature of experience, which necessarily constitutes both the objective and the subjective.

I'm always a bit suspicious when I hear someone say "objects do not exist". It's true that it's not possible for them to exist in consciousness without having at least been observed (naturally). For example, in the case of a person who doesn't see a bus, walks in front of it, and gets killed: no bus, no pain, no consciousness. For an onlooker, however, things are doubtless quite different.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

here we go again.
what is supplied is causes/conditions.
you do not say anything else.
that affirms dependent arising

Dennis' faith is atomic. We're all atoms. All we do are atoms. All we say are atoms. Atoms affirming atoms.

That it's just another introduction of inherent existence but sandwiched between "causes/conditions" and "dependent arising".

We all bring meaning to a discussion. Those not willing should stay home, playing with lego. Self soothing.

[Dennis Mahar]

The notion of subjectivity presupposes we 'invented' our own brain and blood cells etc.
unpacking subjectivity and all that entails.

[Pam Seeback]

The notion of subjectivity presupposes we 'invented' our own brain and blood cells etc.
unpacking subjectivity and all that entails.

Your definition of subjectivity is unknown to me. Can you provide outside validation?

From wiki:

Subjectivity presupposes a subject, one that experiences all the phenomena that makes up and produces subjectivity. The subject is the form of an existing being while subjectivity is the content, and the process of subjectivation is the alteration of what it means to be that subject. It is a classic philosophical question of whether the self, or the subject, is a transient or permanent aspect of existence. Whatever the answer to the problem, it can be said that subjectivity, which is the way that the subject expresses itself, constantly undergoes change, though still retains constant characteristics, depending on the subject who has the potential to affect their subjectivity.

In the sense of wisdom of the infinite, the subject (of its objects) is the infinite. I don't see this view as colliding with the wisdom of no inherent self.

[Pam Seeback]

Leyla: Okay. So, in the context of this discussion, it follows that we ponder the nature of experience, which necessarily constitutes both the objective and the subjective.

I assume by the nature of experience that is both the objective and the subjective you are not implying they are separate things, and instead, that they are always and ever in union with one another?

[Pam Seeback]

This appears way more clear in chapter 33: the ones who knows himself, one who conquers himself and one who pushes with vigor has will. This became in another place "violent" probably because of some fear and rejection of what this would mean, as the demands seem too harsh and its reward not pleasant enough. But it seperates the sheep from the goats!

This translation is my favourite:

"He who knows other men is discerning; he who knows himself is intelligent.
He who overcomes others is strong; he who overcomes himself is mighty.
He who is satisfied with his lot is rich; he who goes on acting with energy has a firm will.
He who does not fail in the requirements of his position, continues long.
He who dies and yet does not perish, has longevity."
- Translated by James Legge, 1891, Chapter 33

To have firm will (will of God or the Tao) does not mean one does not also experience bliss and joy. But bliss and joy without firm will is to perish (of conscious action).

[Dennis Mahar]

Your definition of subjectivity is unknown to me

correct.
that's the point.
to think that spirit is otherwise than completely objective.
gosh.

[Dennis Mahar]

This translation is my favourite:

"He who knows other men is discerning; he who knows himself is intelligent.
He who overcomes others is strong; he who overcomes himself is mighty.
He who is satisfied with his lot is rich; he who goes on acting with energy has a firm will.
He who does not fail in the requirements of his position, continues long.
He who dies and yet does not perish, has longevity."
- Translated by James Legge, 1891, Chapter 33

To have firm will (will of God or the Tao) does not mean one does not also experience bliss and joy. But bliss and joy without firm will is to perish (of conscious action).

Pep talk for 'perils of Pauline'. (ego, a misconception).

Hey we could cash in.
We could get cute Cinderella mirrors A4 size and emboss them in a nice font.
we could hold them up and read:

mirror, mirror on the wall,
who's the fairest of them all?

me, me,me.

should sell like hotcakes.