Enlightenment

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This translation is my favourite:

"He who knows other men is discerning; he who knows himself is intelligent.
He who overcomes other 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

It's good but I think the following based on Susuki and slightly reformatted brings out the subtlety better. The format is four repeats of outlining a good, part of the Path, and its culmination in its perfection: the superior and ultimate.

• One who knows the other is perceptive, but one who knows himself is enlightened.
  One who conquers the other is powerful, but one who conquers himself is mighty.
  One who knows contentment is rich, but one who pushes with vigor has will.
  One who loses not his place endures, but one who dies and not perish has life everlasting.

There you have it the Way and the Tao in four sentences. Hard to surpass but easy to distort.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's a Story about ego.
Word picture.
not direct experience.
Literature.
Conceptualising mind.

Literary philosophers.
house of language.

direct experience
oh okay, we'll talk about it (house of language).
not the direct experience.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh okay, we'll talk about it (house of language). Not the direct experience.

There's a realization that they are not really separate. It's one experience, one action, one life. Whatever one might say or think about it! What remains is achieving clarity by removing the image of any mirror: removing notions of inherent difference between world, body and mind -- just like removing notions of any inherent difference between "conceptual" and "direct" realities.

[Leyla Shen]

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?

Well, yes. I'm pretty sure that's what the standard definition of "constitute" implies. (: So yes, given that, the "both" that comes after it is superfluous, really, but not too harmful. Furthermore, since they are never separate and I don't consider them in any sort of process of coming together or apart, there also is no "one another". They constitute experience itself, all "the myriad things", if you please.

[Leyla Shen]

Your definition of subjectivity is unknown to me

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

What?

[Dennis Mahar]

There's a realization that they are not really separate. It's one experience, one action, one life. Whatever one might say or think about it! What remains is achieving clarity by removing the image of any mirror: removing notions of inherent difference between world, body and mind -- just like removing notions of any inherent difference between "conceptual" and "direct" realities.

That is commentary.
Savvy?
Burning fires for nothing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's a realization that they are not really separate. It's one experience, one action, one life. Whatever one might say or think about it! What remains is achieving clarity by removing the image of any mirror: removing notions of inherent difference between world, body and mind -- just like removing notions of any inherent difference between "conceptual" and "direct" realities.

That is commentary. Savvy? Burning fires for nothing.

Everything is "commentary" on something. But you're still dividing here as it the division inherently exist. It's delusion in full swing, on a message board of all places!

Dennis, you simply do not understand inherent existence and dependent arising if you keep drawing lines and burning all commentary to protect your non-verbal shit. Think about it for some days, sit with it no matter what your made-up opinion is, instead of more quick knee-jerk responses dismissing all meaning and effort here.

[Dennis Mahar]

form is empty.
empty is empty.

cannot be refuted.

take a bex and lie down.

[Pam Seeback]

It's a Story about ego.
Word picture.
not direct experience.
Literature.
Conceptualising mind.

Literary philosophers.
house of language.

direct experience
oh okay, we'll talk about it (house of language).
not the direct experience.

You cannot see (yet) that expressions of words come because of the objective-subjective will of Tao or God or spirit and that the conceptualizing mind is in no way separate from this will. Is not the Totality the Totality?

[Pam Seeback]

Your definition of subjectivity is unknown to me

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

If spirit is only objective, how do you explain our different views on subjectively?

[Dennis Mahar]

If spirit is only objective, how do you explain our different views on subjectively?

conceptualising mind.

the only thing you dish up is causes/conditions affirming dependent arising.
the logic is if it is dependently arisen it is vapour, smoke and mirrors, phantom-like, appearance, dreamscape.
Nothing exists truly.

WTF?
It's not that hard dreamer.
Completely objective.

thoughts arise unbidden.
like little clouds floating in the clear space of pure mind.
this and that.
what if
possibilities for conditioning.
'looking good' is the hottie.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Take a bex and lie down.

A better advice: stop the meds, get up and walk!

But rude awakenings do not fit Frank's bliss story book. Still at war with Father I suppose? Always the same solution: attack the mind, memory, honesty to maintain the peace.

[Dennis Mahar]

little cloud scudding.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: thoughts arise unbidden.
like little clouds floating in the clear space of pure mind.
this and that.
what if
possibilities for conditioning.
'looking good' is the hottie.

Because I am hungry, I eat a sandwich. My thoughts of being hungry are not floating around in the sky, they are not divided into this and that, there is no what if, damn it, I know I am hungry, and because I know I am hungry, I know I must eat. Subject (awareness) of object (hunger).

Most certainly if you take a bex and lie down every time you experience the truth (knowledge) of hunger, you won't be long for this world.

[Dennis Mahar]

That is dependent arising.

dependent origination.

bodies eat each other, body thang.
completely objective.
recycle depot.
what's on the menu?

[Leyla Shen]

And that ^ is a dependently arisen, (subjective) signification.

No amount of phraseology demolition and reconstruction will change that, and since it does not constitute "direct experience" it is purely and necessarily egoistic.

[Dennis Mahar]

well, you know 'correct view' is up for grabs.
that's all.

when subjectivity is mentioned it sure looks like 'affectivity'.

there is a direct experience of 'correct view' producing a sense of wonder, ekstasis.
no one owns it like no one owns hunger.

complete objectivity not I, me, mine.
the idea of I, me, mine is not the case.

[Dennis Mahar]

You might notice playin' the 'suffering card' generates widespread approval.
Playin' the 'bliss card' is called a lie and insane.

The belief in inherent existence exceedingly popular.

[Leyla Shen]

That's not good enough, Dennis! Do you really think that's an experience foreign to the members on this board and the population generally?

Anyone on a synthetic high can experience the kind of "correct view" you've (subjectively) atriculated that belongs to no-one: bliss.

Is that the sum of your correct view, of enlightenment?

[Dennis Mahar]

you can read a brochure concerning a Ferrari.
Study the specs diligently. etc...

That is not the direct experience Ferrari.

The abstract 'emptiness/dependent arising' in 2 dimensional written/spoken form is not the direct experience.

Being inside the abstract experiencing it is the direct experience.

People talk about values (lip service).
being the value is the direct experience.

People say I love you to each other (lip service).
not the direct experience of love.

The direct experience of emptiness.
not the lip service.

Quotes are lip service not the direct experience, perhaps useful in order to look impressive at dinner parties.

You know full well the lip service commentary re LRH comm drills is not the direct experience.

it is empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless 'til you provide the meaning (direct experience).

On the other hand people always/already recognise emptiness because the only thing they ever speak about is causes/conditions.
They just don't recognise by doing so they are firmly establishing dependent arising.
Nor is the next step recognised, that what is dependently arisen cannot be from its own side.

[Leyla Shen]

But Dennis! You are suggesting that all speech is lip service; that the enlightened would not talk about enlightenment since it's not "direct experience".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

you can read a brochure concerning a Ferrari.
Study the specs diligently. etc...

That is not the direct experience Ferrari.

This is immature thinking. Probably never bought a Ferrari or something that cool. The experience starts with the brochure, includes the specs and is only fueled and accelerated because of the symbolic value it has for someone. Without the inner and outer "brochure" the experience will be chaotic, frightening and at best rather meaningless.

You're talking about your own little private brochure of life which is being milked for happiness. To protect it everything else has to be diminished. Otherwise your own vehicle would just pass you over the horizon at high speed. Dennis doing professional tire slashing. Sabotage! Survival of the weakest.

[Leyla Shen]

Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking. Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace—Nietzsche

Today, I spoke to someone in the Tax Office who addressed an issue that had been raised and called to advise. She said she'd love to confirm in writing, but she would have to get help from an IT consultant because she had no idea how to generate a letter.

[Pam Seeback]

That is dependent arising.

dependent origination.

bodies eat each other, body thang.
completely objective.
recycle depot.
what's on the menu?

It is true that hungry and eating are dependently originated, but to the conscious mind that is focused on remaining conscious, hunger is experienced as an absolute thing. Relativism does not exist for the hungry body, it wants what it wants, now! One doesn't have to go far to observe the conscious mind directed in action absolutely - watch a hungry lion chasing a gazelle unto its death. The lion and the gazelle are both beings of dependent origination but when the lion pursues (an absolute action) the gazelle runs (also an absolute action).

Leaving the animal realm behind absoluteness of action enters the moral realm, I will do this or I won't do this. This is the genius of the mind that cares not what others think of his or her actions, it does what it is willed to do by its conscience (will of spirit or God) and by its conscience only, Thy will is done. The absolute man or woman does not suffer, for he or she does not suffer the emotional residue of doubt or guilt or regret that the man or woman of dual-relative actions suffers.

Will does not ask "what's on the menu?" It rests in the empty things of spirit and listens (yin) for the absolute will of the infinite to speak (yang).

[Dennis Mahar]

Bloody Nora!
the only thing you supply is causes/conditions commentary.

fair enough?

In that.

experiencing that.

being that.

Supplier.