The Root of Man's Vanity and Suffering

[bito]

At the very core of man's vanity, ergo his suffering, is his taking of thought as if it belongs to him. "My opinion, my perception, my conjecture, my conclusion, my observation...", all declarations of the ego, wearing with pride that which is not to be worn at all.

Thought comes to awareness unconditionally. Pure, complete, whole. Does man live thought as it comes to his awareness, pure complete and whole? Live it, leave it and move on? No, man grabs hold of thought and attaches his "I" onto it, calling it 'my thought' and 'your thought' - idea is born, opinion is born, and Thought, which is meant to be lived NOW becomes intellectual food to be chewed upon.

Thought is not mine or yours to take. The Christ realized this, the Buddha realized this, Lao Tzu realized this. The only voice that speaks from Truth is the I AM. The voice of man's relativism and dualism is the voice of illusion, for it is not spoken in truth.

Very few want to hear these words I speak, for to hear these words and admit to oneself that they are spoken in truth, is to give up one's thought-stealing ego, to surrender all thoughts of 'me and mine'.

This is the root that must be torn up if you are to walk as a free soul in this world. The root that is thought possession.

[Satyr]

This is a very remarkable statement given that you provide no arguments, except the agreement of external, commonly accepted "authority" figures, and no definitions, such as what exactly you mean by the terms 'I' and 'Thinking'.

The self-hating nihilistic positions underlying Christianity and Buddhism, for that matter, are evident in how they deny life, the unity that makes its experience possible and the aesthetic world itself...both promising salvation through not-thinking.

It is obvious that once the self is denied suffering is gone along with it, but this isn't some form of 'higher state' but the equivalent of inebriation, numbness and death.

I submit that the terms life and suffering are tautologies and that any dogma proposing the elimination of one implies the elimination of the other.

I submit the the notion of thought, without this ephemeral temporal unity we call self is absurdity, and that thought and thinking itself is a manifestation of the very process which we call 'I'.

I submit that without the need/suffering, cosnciousness and the thinking it alludes to, is nonsensical.

I submit that the very idea of freedom, in any absolute form, is a delusion and an insinuation of non-existence.

I submit that the very idea of 'whole' or 'complete' alludes to a non-existent absolute state which, if ever realized, would mean the end of existence and so it is a notion hiding a death-wish.

[Thomas Knierim]

The self-hating nihilistic positions underlying Christianity and Buddhism, for that matter, are evident in how they deny life, the unity that makes its experience possible and the aesthetic world itself...both promising salvation through not-thinking.

It seems that you are intent on perpetuating the historic Western misunderstanding that Buddhism is pessimistic and nihilistic. Quite likely the opposite is true. In practice, Buddhism is very buoyant, as anyone is free to ascertain by practicing it, or just by getting to know its practitioners. I can't speak for Christianity, but I have the feeling you aren't entirely correct there, either.

It is obvious that once the self is denied suffering is gone along with it, but this isn't some form of 'higher state' but the equivalent of inebriation, numbness and death.

It depends on what you mean with the "self". If you mean the "ego" then that can be dispensed with (easier said than done of course) and the result is more likely greater clarity and vitality. Certainly not numbness and neither death.

I submit that the terms life and suffering are tautologies and that any dogma proposing the elimination of one implies the elimination of the other.

It almost appears so. However, Buddhist metaphysics makes a distinction between existence and samsara, which is why life and suffering are not tautologies. Otherwise, enlightenment and nirvana would not be possible or rather could only be realised at death.

I submit the the notion of thought, without this ephemeral temporal unity we call self is absurdity, and that thought and thinking itself is a manifestation of the very process which we call 'I'.

Thinking itself is just an event/phenomenon happening, like clouds in the sky. It's not a manifestation of some entity. The supposed "I" entity enters the game only when thought is identified with or attributed to a thinker.

I submit that the very idea of freedom, in any absolute form, is a delusion and an insinuation of non-existence.

Yes, all absolutes are ideals, or perhaps better: "mathematical abstractions". That doesn't necessarily make them delusions. A perfect triangle isn't a delusion as long as one knows there are no absolute triangles walking around in our world and as long as one can distinguish between conceptual and phenomenal nature.

Cheers, Thomas

[bito]

This is a very remarkable statement given that you provide no arguments, except the agreement of external, commonly accepted "authority" figures, and no definitions, such as what exactly you mean by the terms 'I' and 'Thinking'.

It is not possible to define thinking, or to define 'I', for one would have to use thought to define thought. Thought is. Thought that is not tampered with by the relative mind of man, arrives to our awareness speaking only LIFE. The 'I' of LIFE speaks only of Self Love. I am That.

The self-hating nihilistic positions underlying Christianity and Buddhism, for that matter, are evident in how they deny life, the unity that makes its experience possible and the aesthetic world itself...both promising salvation through not-thinking.

Christianity and Buddhism are thought-bubbles for bursting. When the bubble bursts by Self Realization (I am That), thinking does not cease. What ceases is all desire to compare form, for if I am That, what is there to compare? How can I compare Myself with Me? When desire to compare, to use the intellect ends, thought is wholly an interior experience. Except to speak of this experience so that those hungry for truth can hear.

It is obvious that once the self is denied suffering is gone along with it, but this isn't some form of 'higher state' but the equivalent of inebriation, numbness and death.

When relative thought ceases, when the intellect is transcended, LIFE is Yours, LOVE is Yours.

I submit that the terms life and suffering are tautologies and that any dogma proposing the elimination of one implies the elimination of the other.

This is the intellect trying to dissect Life. There is no elimination in Life, for Life is omnipresent.

I submit the the notion of thought, without this ephemeral temporal unity we call self is absurdity, and that thought and thinking itself is a manifestation of the very process which we call 'I'.

The 'I' of the temporal self is not the 'I' of Pure Awareness. If you listen to both, you will intuit the difference. The 'I' of the temporal self speaks from the position of "I think, therefore I am.' The temporal self seeks a philosophy for pyschological survival, 'something' that it can call its own and wear so as to not be afraid of what it perceives as being the Void that will consume it and leave nothing in its place - the temporary self fears its own vacuum.

The 'I' of (permanent) Awareness is the 'I' that declares "I Am, therefore I think." The I Am is LIFE aware of LIFE. Unconditional Love, for there are no conditions on the "I" of Pure Awareness. Relativism is the application of conditions. Good needs evil, up needs down, high needs low, etc. This omnipresent "I" is the imagined, feared Void of the temporary "I" - but clearly, the omnipresent "I" that is LIFE ITSELF is not a void of anything, for LIFE is infinite form, and LIFE aware of LIFE is infinite form aware of infinite form.

This is why I come to post - to say this very thing - that to transcend one's intellect, to be transformed into LIFE is ... is ... well, words cannot say what "IT" is, but words can say what it is not ... and "IT" is not an absence. The 'emptiness' suggested by Buddhism is not a suggestion of absence, it is a suggestion of Infinite Presence.

I submit that without the need/suffering, cosnciousness and the thinking it alludes to, is nonsensical.

I submit that the very idea of freedom, in any absolute form, is a delusion and an insinuation of non-existence.

Freedom is a metaphor so as to awaken, to suggest. All words spoken are metaphors for the Mystery that is LIFE, a mystery that cannot be explained by thought. The use of the word 'freedom' in the context of my post is to suggest living without the seeking of-for truth.

I submit that the very idea of 'whole' or 'complete' alludes to a non-existent absolute state which, if ever realized, would mean the end of existence and so it is a notion hiding a death-wish.

The concept of 'whole' again is a metaphor that suggests.

Being transformed into LIFE being aware of LIFE obviously is not hiding a death-wish. The death-wish that is hiding is not a wish at all, it is the transforming experience that is happening to individual consciousness, this very moment. If it were not happening within You, You would not have responded to my post.

:)

[Satyr]

It is not possible to define thinking, or to define 'I', for one would have to use thought to define thought. Thought is. This is no definition at all. It isn't even an attempt at one.

One can use this same tactic and simply say "God IS" and be done with it.

Now, you have a proposition which, obviously, you've taken from another source, and you now present it as a 'truth'.
I would, therefore, assume that you've thought this idea through and that you can offer either evidence or reasoning or, at least, definitions, for the things you claim.

It's far too easy to simply accept an idea or a dogma because it comforts us.

Thought that is not tampered with by the relative mind of man, arrives to our awareness speaking only LIFE. The 'I' of LIFE speaks only of Self Love. I am That.This proposition doesn't even make sense.
You are alluding to a thought outside the human brain and you have, as of yet , not even defined thought or estalbished what an 'outside' would mean.

Thinking is a product of the human mind. Now, how you can not tamper with what you, yourself, have produced, is a proposition based on nothing but declarations.

Christianity and Buddhism are thought-bubbles for bursting. When the bubble bursts by Self Realization (I am That), thinking does not cease. What ceases is all desire to compare form, for if I am That, what is there to compare? How can I compare Myself with Me? When desire to compare, to use the intellect ends, thought is wholly an interior experience. Except to speak of this experience so that those hungry for truth can hear. And yet consciuosness is nothing more than comparisons.

"Self-realization" as you describe it, would mean the end of suffering and so of life. Therefore thinking would cease, since consciuosness is a product of need and has no other necessity.

When relative thought ceases, when the intellect is transcended, LIFE is Yours, LOVE is Yours. Again this is but a display of new-age, mumbo-jumbo that pretends to say something by not saying anything.
There is no intellect without life, unless you've tapped into some magical realm that does not follow the laws of nature.

Define love.

This is the intellect trying to dissect Life. There is no elimination in Life, for Life is omnipresent. Huh? :wallbash:

Intelligence is a product of life.
Consciousness is a product of life.
The fact that it turns inwards is a matter worth talking about.
For instance that consciousness is produced to more efficiently direct energies and that this, eventually, reaches a level of such sophistication that it is freed from its original necessity and upon tiself, as a nihilistic self-destroyer, is more a matter of psychology.
But we will get to that, in due time.

The 'I' of the temporal self is not the 'I' of Pure Awareness. Define the difference.

If you listen to both, you will intuit the difference. Is this 'listening" akin to the Christian strategy of claiming that you must first accept Jesus so as to understand the absurdity he is based upon?

The 'I' of the temporal self speaks from the position of "I think, therefore I am.' The temporal self seeks a philosophy for pyschological survival, 'something' that it can call its own and wear so as to not be afraid of what it perceives as being the Void that will consume it and leave nothing in its place - the temporary self fears its own vacuum. You speak as if there is somehting other than this temproal self.
In fact there is no 'I', in the sense of a thing.

Existence is flow and so all is a process, not a inert, stagnate thing - an absolute.

When I say 'I' or self, i am speaking of a process which has a history, a becomnig, made up of experiences and information of many kinds, such as genetic information, held together by memory. Memory being the storage of this information into simplified, generalized data, made up of sensual interpretations, frozen into artificial absolutes (abstractions) which can then be symbolically exchanged and shared and used, through language (math being a language) and so forth.

I still don't know what YOU mean by it.

The 'I' of (permanent) Awareness is the 'I' that declares "I Am, therefore I think." The I Am is LIFE aware of LIFE. Unconditional Love, for there are no conditions on the "I" of Pure Awareness. But of course everything is conditioned, since everything is caused and determined by something else.

You, as a becoming, are conditioned by your past - especially of the past you did not participate in, such as your heritage and your genetic past.

The clever manner in which the human mind invents methods to escape this burden, or this cruelty of natural selection, is evident in your positions.

The desire to self-annihilate so as to attain some "higher" state of consciousness by, ironically, not thinking, is what I stated as being rooted in self-hatred and resentiment.

Relativism is the application of conditions. Good needs evil, up needs down, high needs low, etc. This omnipresent "I" is the imagined, feared Void of the temporary "I" - but clearly, the omnipresent "I" that is LIFE ITSELF is not a void of anything, for LIFE is infinite form, and LIFE aware of LIFE is infinite form aware of infinite form. The individual is a relationship, for which you have yet to offer a definition of, in order to deny it.
This individual is obviously necessary or else it would not manifest itself at all.
Unless you are suggesting that the senses evolved not to aid us but to fool us and that the illusions they create, and which result in our suffering, according to your chosen religion, hide an absolute.
If so, the burden is upon you to prove it.

This is why I come to post - to say this very thing - that to transcend one's intellect, to be transformed into LIFE is ... is ... well, words cannot say what "IT" is, but words can say what it is not ... and "IT" is not an absence. The 'emptiness' suggested by Buddhism is not a suggestion of absence, it is a suggestion of Infinite Presence.The contradictions pretend wisdom when they are simple nonsensical absurdities.

To "transcend" one's intellect into what? Stupidity?
If the way out of suffering is the sacrifice of consciousness to non-consciuosness, (another way of saying death) then I'll pas and willingly accept suffering as part of my essence and necessity.

Freedom is a metaphor so as to awaken, to suggest. No, freedom is a metaphor for the absent absolute.
It is no different than the term power or being or I or one or God or here or there.

It is a symbol for a simplified artificial absolute. A man made abstraction, and so if taken literally it can result in error.

Because everything is in flux then nothing is even a being but always a becomnig, a process.
The self then is not a thing or an object, it is a process. A very real process.

We can discuss the essence of reality if you wish.

All words spoken are metaphors for the Mystery that is LIFE, a mystery that cannot be explained by thought. The use of the word 'freedom' in the context of my post is to suggest living without the seeking of-for truth.Therefore you have nothing more to offer but mysticism and empty insinuations or, regurgitations of religiuos dogma.

The propensity of the average western intellect to be seduced by the exotic, the more adult foreign, is a social phenomenon worth discussing, as well.

The concept of 'whole' again is a metaphor that suggests.Suggests what?
You never compete your thoughts. Is it because they are coming to you from somewhere else?

[Satyr]

It seems that you are intent on perpetuating the historic Western misunderstanding that Buddhism is pessimistic and nihilistic. Quite likely the opposite is true. In practice, Buddhism is very buoyant, as anyone is free to ascertain by practicing it, or just by getting to know its practitioners. I can't speak for Christianity, but I have the feeling you aren't entirely correct there, either.Well then you must "correct" me.

The notion that the idea holds secrets or gifts or wisdom which the idea holder is oblivious to or does not represent, is another human prejudice.

It's the same as saying that communism works and produces ideal humans even if the communists cannot make it work and cannot represent this hypothetical ideal.
It is the same as saying the Christianity is deeper than its followers can present it.

It depends on what you mean with the "self". If you mean the "ego" then that can be dispensed with (easier said than done of course) and the result is more likely greater clarity and vitality. Certainly not numbness and neither death.Self is a process and so it is obviously devoid of substance or of absoluteness.
But this does not make it an illusion or its interpretations of reality, of phenomena, illusions.

In order to interpret reality there has to be a reality readily available to be interpreted.

The idea that there is a hidden, more 'real' reality, behind appearances and that suffering can be avoided without sacrificing consciousness and life, itself, is the height of hypocrisy and compartmentalized thinknig.

It almost appears so. However, Buddhist metaphysics makes a distinction between existence and samsara, which is why life and suffering are not tautologies. Otherwise, enlightenment and nirvana would not be possible or rather could only be realised at death.And are you claiming, as many Christians will, that your perspective is fact based on its tradition or its common acceptance by millions?

You, sir, just made a statement. You did not, however construct an argument.

What Buddhism believes is up for debater ands so it cannot be used as evidence of truth.

I ask:
Is life need?
Is suffering a more pronounced level of need or a need left unsatisfied?

If not then present the reasoning behind the idea that life, is other than suffering, without resorting to dualistic thinking.


Thinking itself is just an event/phenomenon happening, like clouds in the sky. It's not a manifestation of some entity. The supposed "I" entity enters the game only when thought is identified with or attributed to a thinker.Thinking, like life, is a reaction to stimulations and needs.

If you would like to present the existence of a thing-in-itself then do so.
Presupposing it, is duplicitous and a matter of faith, not of logic or reasoning.

A phenomenon, the apparent, derived from the Greek φαινομενον is the apparent.
This does not make it into an illusion, for then you suppose a 'reality' behind it, which you have no reason to suppose. You suppose an illusion maker or a motive.

Why did the senses evolve at all, if all they do is expose the 'mythological' self to illusion and so suffering?
If you suppose that the senses, and the interpretations they result in, are fooling the organism, they are supposedly serving, then you are assuming a hidden motive.

Yes, all absolutes are ideals, or perhaps better: "mathematical abstractions". That doesn't necessarily make them delusions. A perfect triangle isn't a delusion as long as one knows there are no absolute triangles walking around in our world and as long as one can distinguish between conceptual and phenomenal nature.A "perfect" what?
The "perfect" presupposes an absolute.

A triangle is an interpretation of sensual information, given the a priori methods of interpretation the observer possesses. The observer is himself a product of what he observes and so his interpretations mirror, to a degree of accuracy, what is being interpreted.
But given the nature of consciousness and knowledge, it must simplify experience to make it comprehensible.

This simplification is not an illusion but a degree of accuracy concerning what is being interpreted.

This interpretation is what we refer to as abstraction.
A triangle is an abstraction.

It's value is ion how well it encapsulates the process and helps the interpreting mind function within it.

[Satyr]

Some peripheral thoughts on the matter, although, given the opposition, these ideas may not be my own.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychological phenomenon of self-hatred, which can result in this desire to self-annihilate and to deny the very reality of an emerging self as a temporal process and to avenge one's self upon time, the very essence of existence, by eradicating all its manifestations, is based on these crucial factors:

1- The growing emergence of self-consciousness. The absence of anything certain or concrete in this emerging awareness is like the sensation of vertigo: exhilarating, nauseating and terrifying.

2- The elimination of most life threatening challenges which turns the mind inwards and makes the simple and empty mind bored with the absence of immediate distractions.
The mind must then focus on constructing artificial threats and distractions or it turns to contemplating all the possible threats to its existence, making it neurotic and paranoid.

3- The rampant, uncontrolled reproduction of our species, thusly making human life expendable and sex superfluous, even while preaching the ideal of the supposed sanctity of human life, and which propagates weakness and increases the emergence of mutations which are not eradicated through natural selection but are then reproduced under the sheltering walls of human invention.
Mankind’s true reverence for life cleansed of all its duplicitous rhetoric by his activities which threaten all life on this planet and are exemplified by a total disregard for all living creatures and disrespect for all nature.

The basic drive is to annihilate the appearance, the apparent, as being relevant, and to absolve consciousness of all relevance by eradicating its discriminating assessment, thusly “liberating” man from the determining force of his past…of his essence.
This can take on any guise - such as a hypocritical reverence for the hypothetical, idealized absolute, as nothing or as something.

In both cases the horror of an emerging distinctive, discriminating unity is avoided and the responsibilities of existing as the sum of a historical becoming, of determinism, are escaped using denial.
Asceticism used not to strengthen the will or to train, exercise the mind/body, but asceticism used to escape reality, by denying the very nature of life as need/suffering.

Growing populations, and the need to maintain harmonious coexistence, sometimes reaching the point of exposing the individual to masses of strangers they are supposed to consider intimate friends and loved ones, and growing populations existing within man made environments where nature is excluded from the realm of human experience, has made it necessary that individuality and identity be redefined or, as it is referred to, 'expanded' to include the other, and it has also made it necessary that distinguishing markers of identity be restricted and culturally produced.

A state of unconsciousness is promoted.
Not thinking is made into a virtue or a method of reaching some mystical state of enlightenment.
Death is worshiped, masked and perfumed, into a sensational caricature no man dare challenge.
Then it is renamed into a deeper more profound and better life.
It is called genuine.

[Thomas Knierim]

Well then you must "correct" me.

Um, well yes... you have "accused" Christianity and Buddhism of self-hate and nihilism without stating particular reasons, or explaining why this might be the case. I simply replied that it does not appear so to me. I am somewhat familiar with both traditions and I cannot detect self-hate or nihilism as their prominent features. Perhaps it is my inability to see this, but since you made the claim, perhaps you could explain how you arrive at these statements.

Self is a process and so it is obviously devoid of substance or of absoluteness. But this does not make it an illusion or its interpretations of reality, of phenomena, illusions.

You are right of course. But the illusion arises when a solid abiding entity is conjectured, which "self" is clearly not.

The idea that there is a hidden, more 'real' reality, behind appearances and that suffering can be avoided without sacrificing consciousness and life, itself, is the height of hypocrisy and compartmentalized thinknig.

How so? Would you deny that there is a hidden reality behind appearances? What about atoms and quarks, for example? They certainly seem to be hidden behind common appearance. Genes? Evolution?

You, sir, just made a statement. You did not, however construct an argument.

Oops, I was under the impression I made an argument. Let's see again: (1) Samsaric experience is suffering. (2) Nirvanic experience is the end of suffering. (3) Existence (life) comprises both. Conclusion: Existence contains suffering, but is not limited to it.

Is life need? Is suffering a more pronounced level of need or a need left unsatisfied?

Life is need in the sense that it requires certain conditions to be met in order to arise and to continue/sustain. ...which hardly makes it special in the grand scheme of things, since all phenomena are dependent upon conditions. Suffering on the other hand is a psychological state of being that arises solely from the attachment to certain conditions. Now, it is probably correct to say that evolution has designed the human mind to experience "suffering" if certain conditions are present (pain, thirst, hunger, etc.). This is largely a consequence of evolutionary programming. Far from being a "given" that ought to be accepted, it can be overcome completely, and this is the essence of the four noble truths.

If you would like to present the existence of a thing-in-itself then do so. Presupposing it, is duplicitous and a matter of faith, not of logic or reasoning.

The thing-in-itself or noumenon is nothing but a category word for an abstract idea, namely the sum of all experiential and analytic data that can possible be associated with a phenomenon. Presuming that it has any reality beyond the conceptual representation in the subject's mind would amount to idealism, a position which I am not amenable to, as I tried to explain previously with the example of perfect triangles.

A triangle is an interpretation of sensual information, given the a priori methods of interpretation the observer possesses. [...] A triangle is an abstraction.

I am not sure whether there is a contradiction contained in these two statements. There would be one if what you wanted to say is that a triangle is an experientially derived concept (which would amount to empiricism). It clearly isn't, because it is constructed from more fundamental concepts, such as lines and intersections. You can't have the former without the latter. But it has phenomenal counterparts of course.

Cheers, Thomas

[bito]

This is no definition at all. It isn't even an attempt at one.

Exactly! As I said "it is not possible to define thinking, for one would have to use thought to define thought. Thought is.

One can use this same tactic and simply say "God IS" and be done with it.

One could say "God IS" and be done with it, but in the saying "I Am That, That I Am", one can 'see' that it is God, or Life, or Consciousness (Awareness - which is invisible) experiencing Itself as God, or Life, or Consciousness (Awareness of being the visible).

Now, you have a proposition which, obviously, you've taken from another source, and you now present it as a 'truth'.

You've called what I have been saying "a proposition" and then declare that "obviously" I've taken this "proprostion" from another source. You are demonstrating the very thing you are accusing me of. How can you state, as if truth, that which you believe I have done? You have no way of knowing how I arrived at the moment of Now that is my I AM.

I would, therefore, assume that you've thought this idea through and that you can offer either evidence or reasoning or, at least, definitions, for the things you claim.

No, I cannot. Thought cannot be defined. Although the manifestations of thought are visible (which is what sets human consciousness to desiring to define thought), thought itself is invisible (human consciousness forgets this, its source, its origin).

It's far too easy to simply accept an idea or a dogma because it comforts us.

It is the intellect that comforts, for it seeks agreement and disagreement, which keeps awareness believing it is 'safely' anchored in the illusion (the thought of) time and space.

This proposition doesn't even make sense.

I do not offer propostions.

You are alluding to a thought outside the human brain and you have, as of yet , not even defined thought or estalbished what an 'outside' would mean.

It is your use of your intellect that is thinking that I am alluding. I do not allude. I cannot define 'outside', for there is no 'outside'. Awareness cannot leave itself. Consciousness cannot leave itself. You cannot leave You.

Thinking is a product of the human mind. Now, how you can not tamper with what you, yourself, have produced, is a proposition based on nothing but declarations.

Thinking is not a product of the human mind. You are not going deep enough into your own invisibility to ask the question that would allow you to "Know Yourself" as you state in your signature. If you explored the query "what produced the human mind, this mind that I claim is the the producer of thought?", you would truly Know Thyself.

And yet consciuosness is nothing more than comparisons.

It is the conditioned mind that thinks 'comparisons'. The Unconditioned Mind thinks one thought, then another, then another, each one pure and complete 'unto itself.' Uncondtioned thought arrives singularly so as to manifest the moment. This singular appearance only seems as if it is being compared with the next singular appearance, but that is the human mind trying to possess the thought, rather than resting in each moment as it presents itself.

"Self-realization" as you describe it, would mean the end of suffering and so of life. Therefore thinking would cease, since consciuosness is a product of need and has no other necessity.

You are speaking to me from this human mind that you believe produces thought. It is the human mind that believes that suffering is necessary so that life can be, for this suffering comes from the human desire to interpret life as if split in two - good (what is pleasurable) and evil (what is painful).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bito
When relative thought ceases, when the intellect is transcended, LIFE is Yours, LOVE is Yours.

Again this is but a display of new-age, mumbo-jumbo that pretends to say something by not saying anything.
There is no intellect without life, unless you've tapped into some magical realm that does not follow the laws of nature.

You have made up your mind (literally) that what I am displaying is this or that. I have gone within my invisibility and realized the nature of thought, both unconditional and conditioned. I am finished with the latter, and live as the former. This has nothing to do with a 'magical realm', and contrary to what you believe, it is the unconditioned mind that follows the laws of life, not the conditioned mind that believes that it is matter that creates matter.

Define love.

I cannot, but I can suggest according to my awareness of love. This requires listening to the spirit of my words, and not trying to understand them according to logic and reason. Love is Self Awareness.

Intelligence is a product of life.
Consciousness is a product of life.
The fact that it turns inwards is a matter worth talking about.
For instance that consciousness is produced to more efficiently direct energies and that this, eventually, reaches a level of such sophistication that it is freed from its original necessity and upon tiself, as a nihilistic self-destroyer, is more a matter of psychology.

It is man who desires to be seen as being 'intelligent' ergo, 'sophisicated.' This is his vanity. The words "intelligence" and "sophistication" have no substance on their own. It is purely a subjective thought of man's so that he can maintain his belief in his separate status in the universe.


But we will get to that, in due time.

Time is but a thought, a condition of man's so that he can place, then elevate or deflate himself 'somewhere' in space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bito
The 'I' of the temporal self is not the 'I' of Pure Awareness.

Define the difference.

I cannot. But if you read my original post again, and my first reponse to you, I do suggest the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bito
If you listen to both, you will intuit the difference.

Is this 'listening" akin to the Christian strategy of claiming that you must first accept Jesus so as to understand the absurdity he is based upon?

Why do you use the word "absurd?"

You speak as if there is somehting other than this temproal self.
In fact there is no 'I', in the sense of a thing.

This is true, there is no 'I' in the sense of a thing. The "I" is a tool for communicating.

Existence is flow and so all is a process, not a inert, stagnate thing - an absolute.

Nowhere did I state that Consciousness/Awareness is an inert, stagnant thing - an absolute. I use the word LIFE, in caps, so as to suggest infinite movement, movement that cannot be captured by the intellect, the aspect of consciousness that believes it is divided in two so as to reason its existence. There is no logic for existence.

When I say 'I' or self, i am speaking of a process which has a history, a becomnig, made up of experiences and information of many kinds, such as genetic information, held together by memory. Memory being the storage of this information into simplified, generalized data, made up of sensual interpretations, frozen into artificial absolutes (abstractions) which can then be symbolically exchanged and shared and used, through language (math being a language) and so forth.

The conditioned human mind.

I still don't know what YOU mean by it.

The Unconditioned Mind. The Mind that overcomes all conditions, such as history, genes, memory. All identification with these conditions has been transcended.

But of course everything is conditioned, since everything is caused and determined by something else.

Within the boundaries of the human mind, yes. In the Unconditioned Mind, there is no cause, no effect.

You, as a becoming, are conditioned by your past - especially of the past you did not participate in, such as your heritage and your genetic past.

I have overcome my conditionings. My human identity is finished.

The clever manner in which the human mind invents methods to escape this burden, or this cruelty of natural selection, is evident in your positions.

The human mind is indeed clever, or thinks of itself as so. It is this idea of cleverness that I did indeed desire to exit, not because of any desire to escape life, but to exit that which is subjective and relative, and therefore, not true. This exiting of one's human conditioning is an overcoming, a transforming, not an escaping, for as I stated above, you cannot escape you, I cannot escape me.

The desire to self-annihilate so as to attain some "higher" state of consciousness by, ironically, not thinking, is what I stated as being rooted in self-hatred and resentiment.

This way of being is not higher, it only seems as such when one is seeking to exit their conditioned self. It is as if one must 'reach beyond' the self so as to be 'rid of' the self, but this sense of 'reaching beyond' is a temporary awarenesss.

Do you 'hear' self-hatred in my words?

No, freedom is a metaphor for the absent absolute.
It is no different than the term power or being or I or one or God or here or there.

It is a symbol for a simplified artificial absolute. A man made abstraction, and so if taken literally it can result in error.

Exactly. This is why we cannot define thought and why thought can only be lived, given (a metaphor) by Source (a metaphor) to our awareness (a metaphor) so that we may live (a metaphor). The interiority of thought is Live living You.

Because everything is in flux then nothing is even a being but always a becomnig, a process.
The self then is not a thing or an object, it is a process. A very real process.

A process that cannot be captured by thought. You cannot step into the same river twice.

We can discuss the essence of reality if you wish.

I am living my reality, my thoughts, NOW. How can I discuss my living?

Therefore you have nothing more to offer but mysticism and empty insinuations or, regurgitations of religiuos dogma.

I offer my experience of transcending my human conditions. No more, no less. Realistic hope for those who desire to do the same.

The propensity of the average western intellect to be seduced by the exotic, the more adult foreign, is a social phenomenon worth discussing, as well.

Not on my radar.

Quote:
The concept of 'whole' again is a metaphor that suggests.

Suggests what?
You never compete your thoughts. Is it because they are coming to you from somewhere else?

Again, there is no 'somewhere else'. The thoughts I display here on TBV do not contain opinions or perceptions, for I am living my thoughts, moment by moment. Thought moves my being, my body, my awareness. They are the unconditioned thoughts of Life, of Spirit and are not for sale.

[j000han]

:)[quote=
Again, there is no 'somewhere else'. The thoughts I display here on TBV do not contain opinions or perceptions, for I am living my thoughts, moment by moment. Thought moves my being, my body, my awareness. They are the unconditioned thoughts of Life, of Spirit and are not for sale.[/quote]

Thoughts do not not belong to anyone.
Some think that they can be claimed as 'intellectual property' this shows
how far delusion can go.
Sure, you want money/status/power/control don’t you?
Isn’t that what it is all about?
You write a book about selfrealization/cosmic conciousness/and what have you not,
and then you claim copy right(s).
That’s silly isn’t it?
You go out for a millitary excersize that costs 90 thousand Euro’s/dollars a shot
and that is ‘merely’an excersize..
That’s silly isn’t it?

[bito]

Very silly indeed, jooohan. This is the vanity of man, for he thinks "well, if I can't be recognized, rewarded, praised, castigated, shamed, agreed with or disagreed with, for my thoughts, which he believes are the products of his (own) mind, then what is the point of it all?

This is the line of thinking that leads seekers to believe that to live unconditionally means that one's individual awareness is annihilated. This cannot be so, or I would not be typing these words! All that is annihilated when one transcends one's conditioned awareness is the idea of (separate) thought ownership, the core idea that births I-thoughts such as "my opinion, my belief, my perception, my theory, my thesis."

This is why it is said that one cannot serve two masters. Either one believes, opines and perceives and bounces back and forth between the conditions of the good and evil judgments that arise from the duality of such thinking, or one lives their thinking unconditionally, NOW.

[Taeguk]

Satyr you make some good points, however from what you have presented here of your views I actually think you have more in common with a Buddhist perspective than you realize. For example when you say:

You, as a becoming, are conditioned by your past - especially of the past you did not participate in, such as your heritage and your genetic past.

This is quite similiar to what Buddhists mean when they speak of karma. Likewise, your statements about reality as a process:

Existence is flow and so all is a process, not a inert, stagnate thing - an absolute.

Is exactly what Buddhists mean when they talk about impermanence and sunyata. Emptiness simply means that "things" are mutually arising, interdependent processes which are internally related as opposed to being a collection of static, inert objects. That's what is meant by the lack of self-nature: a lack of inherent, substantial existence.

The idea that there is a hidden, more 'real' reality, behind appearances and that suffering can be avoided without sacrificing consciousness and life, itself, is the height of hypocrisy and compartmentalized thinknig.


But that's the thing. Buddhism most emphatically does not claim that there is a "reality behind appearances". That's a Hindu thing, or a Neoplatonic thing, but not a Buddhist thing. Mahayana Buddhism in particular holds that form is emptiness, and emptiness, form. Part of what that means is that appearance ("form") is reality ("emptiness") and vice-versa.

Although the general thrust of certain strands of Indian thought has been away from phenomena and to a purported Absolute (i.e. "Self" or "Brahman"), Buddhism reversed this trend, especially Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna famously wrote that nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana; this is even more in line with what you are saying about reality and appearance. While Plato's "Divided Line" created this division in the West, it is entirely foreign to Buddhism.

This becomes all the more pronounced when Buddhism encountered the this-worldly character of Chinese Daoism. The rest was Zen Buddhism, which takes great pains to remove from its practitioners the idea that enlightenment, nirvana, etc. is somehow "out there".

Thus at least in Mahayna Buddhism, the goal is not to transcend the world, or to sacrifice consciousness or life. In realizing the emptiness of the world, one becomes aware of infinite possibilities and means of utilizing them.

[schrodinger]

It is the intellect that comforts, for it seeks agreement and disagreement, which keeps awareness believing it is 'safely' anchored in the illusion (the thought of) time and space.

It is the conditioned mind that thinks 'comparisons'. The Unconditioned Mind thinks one thought, then another, then another, each one pure and complete 'unto itself.' Uncondtioned thought arrives singularly so as to manifest the moment. This singular appearance only seems as if it is being compared with the next singular appearance, but that is the human mind trying to possess the thought, rather than resting in each moment as it presents itself.

You are speaking to me from this human mind that you believe produces thought. It is the human mind that believes that suffering is necessary so that life can be, for this suffering comes from the human desire to interpret life as if split in two - good (what is pleasurable) and evil (what is painful).

Nowhere did I state that Consciousness/Awareness is an inert, stagnant thing - an absolute. I use the word LIFE, in caps, so as to suggest infinite movement, movement that cannot be captured by the intellect, the aspect of consciousness that believes it is divided in two so as to reason its existence. There is no logic for existence.

I have overcome my conditionings. My human identity is finished.

I offer my experience of transcending my human conditions. No more, no less. Realistic hope for those who desire to do the same.—Bito--

Those are all Interesting statements, Bito. However, nothing that you have stated here encourages me to abandon using my senses and my intellect to try and understand the Universe around me through empirical, analytical and conceptual methods and deduce particular conclusions which comprise the physical science. It seems to me that you have reached a state where you either fully understand this Universe ( very unlikely ) or you have decided that you do not need to understand it at all, because it “just is”. I suppose that this state offers you considerable comfort, as I can confirm that my scientific quest does indeed involve some very hard work, results in stress and yes, that word “suffering”. However, whenever scientists arrive, after much labor, at a new scientific “truth”, they and I are rewarded with one of the greatest feelings of satisfaction imaginable; it is the feeling of accomplishment. On the other hand, the transcending of the human condition, as you referred to can probably be achieved just as well by taking up residence in an opium den. I fail to see the sense of accomplishment in such a condition, and it is not a state I would ever aspire to. I believe that we do have a purpose in life, and that is to experience the reality of this Universe by being a part of it, and learn from that experience. What is the point of transcending it all? Why not just remain in the womb and refuse to be born in the first place? Suffering is a big part of the experience of life, but the suffering is not without its reward. Indeed, what value does a reward hold without first experiencing some suffering in the attainment? I believe that we all begin to transcend this experience of living as we grow older and death approaches us. There is no need to force this transcendence to occur before it is due to happen of its own accord, and it is counter productive to offer it to those who still have much work to do.

[Satyr]

Um, well yes... you have "accused" Christianity and Buddhism of self-hate and nihilism without stating particular reasons, or explaining why this might be the case. I simply replied that it does not appear so to me. I am somewhat familiar with both traditions and I cannot detect self-hate or nihilism as their prominent features. Perhaps it is my inability to see this, but since you made the claim, perhaps you could explain how you arrive at these statements.They are nihilistic because they deny the self, as a relevant phenomenon, they deny the importance or the reality of the world, the experience of it, they imply a better world, an enlightened state which depends upon, in both cases, ignoring reason or not-thinking - as in meditation - and they both promise an end to suffering when suffering is the experience of the flow, we call reality.

My metaphysical positions are so:

-All is flow, and so it is not a thing but a process. This flow is measured, by man, using time.

-Space is the awareness of possibility in this flow.

-Phenomena arise in this flow, and so one can reason that these appearances are due to a differentiation in temporality or in speed of flow.

-These differentiations produce the world,a s we percive it and interpret it. It is not an "illusion", nor is anything hidden by it. The degree of awareness of the observer determines how much of the observed is perceived or even interpreted.

-Intelligence is a measurment of conscious awareness.

-Interpretations are constructed by perceiving patterns within the flow and combining them with a priori mental processes which are produced by the mind's evolution and so mirror the very processes that produced it.
The interpretation is affected by the mind's synaptic speeds, which are none other than temporal manifestations themselves, and so are comparisons.
For instance hardness as opposed to softness is an interpretation of a differentiation in the speed of change between the observer and the observed.

-Interpretations are called abstractions and depend on generalizations and simplifications of an experience that is ongoing. Thusly they are frozen instances of sensual awareness. this does not make them illusions or incorrect, since their accuracy is determined by their success and their ability to predict future phenomena and because the senses have evolved to aid the organism survive and so the organism's survival proves their degree of accuracy.

-Intelligence is the ability to project one's own self-awareness upon the other or the future so as to deduce its nature and to understand it or predict its behavior or its relationship to the mind doing the interpreting.

-Life is need in that life produces the conscious interpretation of the flow of time as need which, if left unsatisfied grows in intensity, as it grows as a threat to the cohesion of the emerging unity or the organism.
Need is the conscious awareness of what you, and as a consequence, the universe is.

-The self is not an illusion but a process a towards the absent - a towards fulfillment that is never realized. This is the only necessity for life since any other assumption is based on superstition, religiuos mythology, and fearful hope.
There is a Will TO Power or a Will TO life reflecting the basic truth of flowing towards an indeterminate goal which is absent and a mental construct or a non-existent absolute.

-Language is a symbolization of the previously mentioned mental abstractions and so language is fraught with non-existent absolutes. If taken literally they can result in the Christian delusion. They must be taken metaphorically and artistically. All language is art and so the ancient Greek tradition of teaching rhetoric was not foolish.

-To accept life one must accept the experience of it, which is need.

-Nihilism takes on many forms. As a childish mechanism it offers relief and a dogma preaching resentment towards the very essence of existence. In more mature religions it takes the form of extreme asceticism and self-denial; the denial of existence itself. In all cases nihilism offers a promise for relief from suffering. In other words from the experience of living. It is the towards the state of the living-dead. The mind is inebriated using various methods or made numb. Meditation is this denial of thought and the sensation of the flow as an indifferent non-entity.

How so? Would you deny that there is a hidden reality behind appearances? What about atoms and quarks, for example? They certainly seem to be hidden behind common appearance. Genes? Evolution?The example you use does not imply that reality is hiding or sensual awareness is superficial, only that our perceptions fail to interpret or become aware of possibilities beyond a certain level.

Appearance is the immediate summation of the process of becomnig. It is the complete history of the unity as it has been shaped and determined by the environments and how its ancestors reacted to them.
As such beauty is not skin[deep and race is not superficial and sex is not irrelevant.
A bit of controversy - but not for controversy's sake - to heat things up.

The appearance is a representation of the very essence of that which appears whether the observer is aware of it completely or can manage to rationalize what the appearance signifies.

Oops, I was under the impression I made an argument. Let's see again: (1) Samsaric experience is suffering. (2) Nirvanic experience is the end of suffering. (3) Existence (life) comprises both. Conclusion: Existence contains suffering, but is not limited to it.The only way to decrease suffering is to become strong enough to cope with the effects of temporal attrition and environmental challenges upon your appearance.

Life is need in the sense that it requires certain conditions to be met in order to arise and to continue/sustain. ...which hardly makes it special in the grand scheme of things, since all phenomena are dependent upon conditions. Suffering on the other hand is a psychological state of being that arises solely from the attachment to certain conditions. Now, it is probably correct to say that evolution has designed the human mind to experience "suffering" if certain conditions are present (pain, thirst, hunger, etc.). This is largely a consequence of evolutionary programming. Far from being a "given" that ought to be accepted, it can be overcome completely, and this is the essence of the four noble truths.
Is the need for attrition soemthing the human mind has wrongly grown "attached" to?
Need is the very awareness of existence as it reflect both the universe, as flow and the unity emerging from it, as its product.

As I said before this 'towards' is this self trying to detach itself from the flow and so to compete itself - to become a singularity and, in so doing, drop out of existence.
In other words it is a towards self-annihilation, because competion would entail the end of the necessity for consciousness and intelligence and life.

The true lover of life embraces his incompleteness, because it is this very lack that makes him possible, and only uses asceticism/athleticism or any striving towards as a means of increasing his tolerance of this state and, if need be, in comparison to other unities that threaten or impose restrictions to its becomnig.

The thing-in-itself or noumenon is nothing but a category word for an abstract idea, namely the sum of all experiential and analytic data that can possible be associated with a phenomenon. Presuming that it has any reality beyond the conceptual representation in the subject's mind would amount to idealism, a position which I am not amenable to, as I tried to explain previously with the example of perfect triangles.This does not make it unreal or an illusion.

[Satyr]

Satyr you make some good points, however from what you have presented here of your views I actually think you have more in common with a Buddhist perspective than you realize. For example when you say:

You, as a becoming, are conditioned by your past - especially of the past you did not participate in, such as your heritage and your genetic past.

This is quite similiar to what Buddhists mean when they speak of karma. To me the concept of karma was simply the golden rule applied.
Treat enough people like shit and one of them will eventually pay you back using the same coin.
Treat them with respect or kowtow to their egos and needs and they will reciprocate.

Every interaction, within a social context, demands a certain level of self repression and duplicity.
Civilization is built on bullshit.

Likewise, your statements about reality as a process:

But that's the thing. Buddhism most emphatically does not claim that there is a "reality behind appearances". That's a Hindu thing, or a Neoplatonic thing, but not a Buddhist thing. Mahayana Buddhism in particular holds that form is emptiness, and emptiness, form. Part of what that means is that appearance ("form") is reality ("emptiness") and vice-versa.

Although the general thrust of certain strands of Indian thought has been away from phenomena and to a purported Absolute (i.e. "Self" or "Brahman"), Buddhism reversed this trend, especially Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna famously wrote that nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana; this is even more in line with what you are saying about reality and appearance. While Plato's "Divided Line" created this division in the West, it is entirely foreign to Buddhism.

This becomes all the more pronounced when Buddhism encountered the this-worldly character of Chinese Daoism. The rest was Zen Buddhism, which takes great pains to remove from its practitioners the idea that enlightenment, nirvana, etc. is somehow "out there".

Thus at least in Mahayna Buddhism, the goal is not to transcend the world, or to sacrifice consciousness or life. In realizing the emptiness of the world, one becomes aware of infinite possibilities and means of utilizing them.My response was to the thread's author and his comments.

Like with any idea or ideal it is interpreted differently by each thinker, according to the thinker's motives, intelelctual level, knowledge, emotional state, degree of power and his teachings and indoctrination within a cultural norm.

[Satyr]

Exactly! As I said "it is not possible to define thinking, for one would have to use thought to define thought. Thought is.This is a cop out. Thinking is used to define all experiences.

Even your assessment is based on your thinking which is not specific and relies upon ambiguity and evasiveness to construct the illusion of substance. Ironic, isn't it?

If you are proposing an alternative method of understanding then do so.
Osmosis, feeling, not-thinking?
I'm open to any suggestions accompanied with reasoning.
But wait, reasoning also depends on thinknig and so we must assume that your opinion is true given that no thinking is allowed.

One could say "God IS" and be done with it, but in the saying "I Am That, That I Am", one can 'see' that it is God, or Life, or Consciousness (Awareness - which is invisible) experiencing Itself as God, or Life, or Consciousness (Awareness of being the visible). So, you are proposing the existence of the invisible.

Given your statement one can envision a number of absurdities as proven.
Unicorns exist because they are invisible and they also depend on the arrenting of thinking to make it 'probable'.

You've called what I have been saying "a proposition" and then declare that "obviously" I've taken this "proprostion" from another source. You are demonstrating the very thing you are accusing me of. How can you state, as if truth, that which you believe I have done? You have no way of knowing how I arrived at the moment of Now that is my I AM. But of course I can, just as I can deduce that someone has farted when I percive a smell and see someone acting suspiciously embarrassed.

I have experience with Buddhists and you repeat the very arguments I have encountered numerous times and so I can safely assume that you are following a particular dogma.

No, I cannot. Thought cannot be defined. Although the manifestations of thought are visible (which is what sets human consciousness to desiring to define thought), thought itself is invisible (human consciousness forgets this, its source, its origin).Thought is not invisible it is simply not accessible to the perceptions of the human being.
Neither are my bowels and if I wear pants, as it is expected of me under these cultural environments, neither are my erections.
This does not make them invisible or illusions or unreal.

You cannot define thought because you follow dogma without thinking and you embrace exotic ideals because they offer you the promise of relief and a vengeance agaisnt the very determining factors that made you as you are - it is self-hatred personified.

Natural selection is a cruel natural device. Coupled with the modern human trend to defend weakness and spread this fictitious myth concerning the sanctity of life or love as a transcending force, and also coupled with the underlying nihilism many current religions hide behind pretentious declarations concerning the love of life results in this:

Millions of genetically unfit beings becomnig aware of their own insecurities and deficiencies and seeking to pull life down with them or ways to avoid life's indifference.

It is not accidental that these religiuos traditions emerged where they did at the historic periods that they did.
They were made necessary by the conditions that existed.
over population and limited resources and the need for larger and larger populations to coexist within smaller and smaller spaces made any dogma preaching docility, self-deprecation, self-denial and meekness, a matter of grave improtance.
Civilization depended on it.

As such love and respect became something everyone deserved, independent of quality, and any exhibition of differentiation was admonished as vile or a sin.
Uniformity became a necessary virtue.

It is the intellect that comforts, for it seeks agreement and disagreement, which keeps awareness believing it is 'safely' anchored in the illusion (the thought of) time and space.Therefore you propose the end of intellect?
If you do then you are within a growing popular movement that is making stupidity into an advantage - if, of course, happiness is your goal.

I do not offer propostions. How can you, when you are anti-intellectual?
You offer religious dogma.
A religiuos dogma, no different than Christianity and which has as its foundation a self-hatred and a denial of the world as it is, for a hypothetical better world.
Of course 'better' is a subjective term and so it is an indirect way of saying "Better for you".

It is your use of your intellect that is thinking that I am alluding. I do not allude. I cannot define 'outside', for there is no 'outside'. Awareness cannot leave itself. Consciousness cannot leave itself. You cannot leave You. But if I am not the one that is thinking from where am I grasping the thoughts I call mt own?

Your statement alludes - yes alludes - to a proposition - yes a proposition for an alternative way of thinking.
Where is it?

Allusion does not cut it.
I can allude that I can beat up any man alive, but I am talking out of my ass if I don't actually do it.

Thinking is not a product of the human mind. You are not going deep enough into your own invisibility to ask the question that would allow you to "Know Yourself" as you state in your signature. If you explored the query "what produced the human mind, this mind that I claim is the the producer of thought?", you would truly Know Thyself. Again, you begin with a remarkable statement, claiming I am not the one thinking, and then you continue with ambiguity and insinuations with no substance.

Here is my own version:

Unicorns exist. If you go deep enough into the forests and you are worthy of seeing one, then you will finally come to see this wonderful creature.

It doesn't work. Not with me.

Christians use the other method:
If you open yourself up to Jesus, honestly and truthfully, then you will realize his TRUTH.
Wow!!!
Stop thinking and you can know.
Let's all lobotomize ourselves to finally find salvation in delusion.

It is the conditioned mind that thinks 'comparisons'. The Unconditioned Mind thinks one thought, then another, then another, each one pure and complete 'unto itself.' Uncondtioned thought arrives singularly so as to manifest the moment. This singular appearance only seems as if it is being compared with the next singular appearance, but that is the human mind trying to possess the thought, rather than resting in each moment as it presents itself.Yes, unfortunately, for you, consciuosness itself is a discriminating process.
If you are offering unconsciousness as your way to some deeper truth then you are offering death as a way to life.

You are not only basing your ambiguities on self-contradictions but they are dependent on compartmentalized thinking. Yes thinking, because even in your meditative states the mind does not stop.

You are speaking to me from this human mind that you believe produces thought. It is the human mind that believes that suffering is necessary so that life can be, for this suffering comes from the human desire to interpret life as if split in two - good (what is pleasurable) and evil (what is painful). Regurgitation, parroting, and following entails using another's mind to do the thinknig for you.

I never said anything about good/evil.
These terms are simple survival tactics and essential.
A poisonous mushroom is bad. A ripe fruit is good.

Again you are alluding to a deity that is thinknig for me.
Come out and admit that you are a theist.

You have made up your mind (literally) that what I am displaying is this or that. I have gone within my invisibility and realized the nature of thought, both unconditional and conditioned. I am finished with the latter, and live as the former. This has nothing to do with a 'magical realm', and contrary to what you believe, it is the unconditioned mind that follows the laws of life, not the conditioned mind that believes that it is matter that creates matter.So, within your conditioned mind you do not follow the rules of life?
Who said matter creates matter?

But, since you brought it up, what "creates" matter?

I, for one, don't beleive anything is created. My metaphysical positions force me to beleive that one form flows into another form and matter is a manifestation of this flow, exhibiting a differentiation and so becomnig apparent.

I cannot, but I can suggest according to my awareness of love. This requires listening to the spirit of my words, and not trying to understand them according to logic and reason. Love is Self Awareness. So, love is not a survival tool meant to facilitate social behavior and reproduction and cooperative unions, made necessary by weakness and need, but some mystical power?
So, love, like hate, and any other emotion is not a preprogrammed reaction to particular stimulations, creating more efficient reaction times, and enabling the overcoming of the primary concern with self-preservation, thusly making interaction possible, but it is an awakening, of sorts?

I'm becomnig more and more regretful for entering into this threat.
Don't be surprised if I do not respond to your posts any more.

If you've overcome your ego then your response will reflect it.
:loveyou:

[bito]

So, you are proposing the existence of the invisible.

Thought is invisible unless it is spoken. This is a true statement, not a proposition.

I, for one, don't beleive anything is created. My metaphysical positions force me to beleive that one form flows into another form and matter is a manifestation of this flow, exhibiting a differentiation and so becomnig apparent.

Words are metaphors, including 'created'. It is when we get tangled up in the literalism of words, the intellectual position of believing that an absolute definition of Life is possible, that dialogues get bogged down and the spirit of the words are lost. The Spirit of Life (no deity!!) cannot be objectively or subjectively stated by thought. One must listen with one's inner conscience to the spirit of the suggested meaning.

Where you say that your 'metaphysical positions force you to believe that one form flows into another form, etc....', I say (meaning I am transformed from believing awareness into Living Awareness): "form infinitely becomes form; I am aware of this infinite becoming; this awareness is to be lived by me."

You, and many before you, seem determined to pin on my thought presence, that of being 'anti-intellectual' and 'anti-thought.' Transcendence of the intellect, which is conditioned thought, is not to be against the intellect, it is to translate via the intellect until all translations run out. It is to experience the conditions of the intellect and to exit these conditions. There is no choice in this transcending, it is a 'natural' outcome of realizing that conditional thinking is the cause of the inner tension within, the inner tension of being repetitively pulled between relative positions.

As for the 'anti-thought' label - where in any of my words have I demonstrated an 'anti-thought' position? What I have demonstrated is the living of thoughts unconditionally, as they are presented to my awareness. I cannot share this living with you via my thoughts, for as you say, one form flows into another form. And yet, you continue to ask me to define for you, my 'flowing'. :lol: :loveyou:

[Satyr]

Thought is invisible unless it is spoken. This is a true statement, not a proposition. Are you another "bearer of absolute truth"?
Messiahs abound.

I only deal with hypothesis and theories that are either validated by empirical evidence and/or arguments or are made absurd by them.
I only deal with degree not with absolutes and absolutists.

Words are metaphors, including 'created'. It is when we get tangled up in the literalism of words, the intellectual position of believing that an absolute definition of Life is possible, that dialogues get bogged down and the spirit of the words are lost. The Spirit of Life (no deity!!) cannot be objectively or subjectively stated by thought. One must listen with one's inner conscience to the spirit of the suggested meaning. "Listen with one's inner conscience"?
Wow!!
Another one of those post-modern mystical sentences with no real meaning and dependent on never thinking or defining the words used.

"Inner"?

Here, whether you even know it or not, you are alluding to a duality.
An mysterious 'inner', invisible, more real reality, accessed, ironically by not thinking, as opposed to the sensually perceived world.

Where you say that your 'metaphysical positions force you to believe that one form flows into another form, etc....', I say (meaning I am transformed from believing awareness into Living Awareness): "form infinitely becomes form; I am aware of this infinite becoming; this awareness is to be lived by me."And?

You, and many before you, seem determined to pin on my thought presence, that of being 'anti-intellectual' and 'anti-thought.' No, you do a fine job of it on your own.

Once more you allude to a disagreement and offer nothing but a declaration.

Transcendence of the intellect, which is conditioned thought, is not to be against the intellect, it is to translate via the intellect until all translations run out. Fascinating, giuven that you have nither proven not reasoned through this hypothetical "transcendence", but you take it as self-evident, mainly because you avoid defining intelligence or speculating as to how or why it even emerges - other than the allusion to it emerging to fool us and challenge us towards enlightenment.

It is to experience the conditions of the intellect and to exit these conditions. And once you exit you are comfortably in the realm of stupidity or anti-intellect.

There is no choice in this transcending, it is a 'natural' outcome of realizing that conditional thinking is the cause of the inner tension within, the inner tension of being repetitively pulled between relative positions.
Once more the allusion to an alternative and accompanied by nothing more than a declaration.

This is typical of all religiuos thinking and religiuos minds infected by it.

As for the 'anti-thought' label - where in any of my words have I demonstrated an 'anti-thought' position? What I have demonstrated is the living of thoughts unconditionally, as they are presented to my awareness. I cannot share this living with you via my thoughts, for as you say, one form flows into another form. And yet, you continue to ask me to define for you, my 'flowing'. :lol: :loveyou:Therefore, I presume, one can only gain access to your experience of this meta-reality through osmosis or imagination?

What a clever way of avoiding actual thought and challenges.

Particularly given how adeptly you avoided or ignored my challenges, only to continue offering allusions and declarations.

You defame thinking and you cannot percieve any anti-intellectualism in this?

Wow!!

I think one must differentiate between motives here.
The motive to know or to understand is different than the motive to be happy or to escape suffering...ergo the experience of existence.

I cannot speculate as to the totality of Buddhism, or the many ways in which it is experienced or understood, but only in how it is expressed through its followers.
The opinion holder is a living representation of the opinion or the idea.

And so I cannot speculate as to a hidden or deeper truth which the representative fails to embody or to fully express.
To do so would entail a projection of a perfection where none is evident - idealism.

The undertone of nihilistic self-hatred is a common trait amongst our current popular religions. In my view this is because of obvious environmental conditions which make these metaphysical positions necessary and even symptoms of this environmental conditioning, over thousands of years.

But more on this later. :thumbsup:

[bito]

Those are all Interesting statements, Bito. However, nothing that you have stated here encourages me to abandon using my senses and my intellect to try and understand the Universe around me through empirical, analytical and conceptual methods and deduce particular conclusions which comprise the physical science. It seems to me that you have reached a state where you either fully understand this Universe ( very unlikely ) or you have decided that you do not need to understand it at all, because it “just is”. I suppose that this state offers you considerable comfort, as I can confirm that my scientific quest does indeed involve some very hard work, results in stress and yes, that word “suffering”. However, whenever scientists arrive, after much labor, at a new scientific “truth”, they and I are rewarded with one of the greatest feelings of satisfaction imaginable; it is the feeling of accomplishment. On the other hand, the transcending of the human condition, as you referred to can probably be achieved just as well by taking up residence in an opium den. I fail to see the sense of accomplishment in such a condition, and it is not a state I would ever aspire to. I believe that we do have a purpose in life, and that is to experience the reality of this Universe by being a part of it, and learn from that experience. What is the point of transcending it all? Why not just remain in the womb and refuse to be born in the first place? Suffering is a big part of the experience of life, but the suffering is not without its reward. Indeed, what value does a reward hold without first experiencing some suffering in the attainment? I believe that we all begin to transcend this experience of living as we grow older and death approaches us. There is no need to force this transcendence to occur before it is due to happen of its own accord, and it is counter productive to offer it to those who still have much work to do.

Transcendence of one's conditions cannot be forced. This is not possible. However, the awareness that one is transcending can be 'tweeked', and in this 'tweeking', there is an understanding of what is happening within one's conscious awareness.

The only work that must be 'done' is to transcend one's conditions. What other work is there to be done? We say 'work', and yet, this is a human interpretation...a metaphor for 'what is happening to my awareness every moment of my thinking as if my awareness, my consciousness, is split into two halves ... one half interpreting the other half, trying to make a whole.'

[bito]

shrodinger, I don't know what happened to my quoting of your words in the post above, but when I tried to edit and save my edit, I was unable to do so. I shall try and repost here:

shrodinger: Those are all Interesting statements, Bito. However, nothing that you have stated here encourages me to abandon using my senses and my intellect to try and understand the Universe around me through empirical, analytical and conceptual methods and deduce particular conclusions which comprise the physical science. It seems to me that you have reached a state where you either fully understand this Universe ( very unlikely ) or you have decided that you do not need to understand it at all, because it “just is”. I suppose that this state offers you considerable comfort, as I can confirm that my scientific quest does indeed involve some very hard work, results in stress and yes, that word “suffering”. However, whenever scientists arrive, after much labor, at a new scientific “truth”, they and I are rewarded with one of the greatest feelings of satisfaction imaginable; it is the feeling of accomplishment. On the other hand, the transcending of the human condition, as you referred to can probably be achieved just as well by taking up residence in an opium den. I fail to see the sense of accomplishment in such a condition, and it is not a state I would ever aspire to. I believe that we do have a purpose in life, and that is to experience the reality of this Universe by being a part of it, and learn from that experience. What is the point of transcending it all? Why not just remain in the womb and refuse to be born in the first place? Suffering is a big part of the experience of life, but the suffering is not without its reward. Indeed, what value does a reward hold without first experiencing some suffering in the attainment? I believe that we all begin to transcend this experience of living as we grow older and death approaches us. There is no need to force this transcendence to occur before it is due to happen of its own accord, and it is counter productive to offer it to those who still have much work to do.
Transcendence of one's conditions cannot be forced. This is not possible. However, the awareness that one is transcending can be 'tweeked', and in this 'tweeking', there is an understanding of what is happening within one's conscious awareness.

The only work that must be 'done' is to transcend one's conditions. What other work is there to be done? We say 'work', and yet, this is a human interpretation...a metaphor for 'what is happening to my awareness every moment of my thinking as if my awareness, my consciousness, is split into two halves ... one half interpreting the other half, as if trying to make a whole.'

[schrodinger]

The only work that must be 'done' is to transcend one's conditions. What other work is there to be done? We say 'work', and yet, this is a human interpretation...a metaphor for 'what is happening to my awareness every moment of my thinking as if my awareness, my consciousness, is split into two halves ... one half interpreting the other half, as if trying to make a whole.'

I understand and I respect you and your goal, Bito, but I also believe this is where your ephemeral, transcendental balloon gets pierced by the sharp thorn of reality. Regardless of what level of transcendence you may have reached, there is always “work” to be done unless you have managed to completely escape the reality that you still happen to occupy a physical body. Your body requires food, clothing, shelter from the elements, and in your case, Bito you still obviously have a need for a computer, Internet connection and some source of energy to power all that. Where do you think the technology comes from to enable you to communicate your transcendental discovery? It comes from hard working individuals who have studied physics, mathematics, electronics etc. In other words, it comes from people who are using their intellects, as well as their hands, rather than totally relying on some transcendental form of pure awareness. As long as you are relying on the fruits of other peoples’ intellects, you have not transcended anything! In this discussion, I am not belittling the value of having some spiritual, even transcendental awareness as I believe this is important for the development of responsible social interactions and human advancement. But I fail to see the value of wallowing in pure transcendental awareness and belittling the value of intellectual development and good old fashioned hard work, as you seem to be doing.

[Thomas Knierim]

They [Buddhism and Christianity] are nihilistic because they deny the self, as a relevant phenomenon, they deny the importance or the reality of the world, the experience of it, they imply a better world, an enlightened state which depends upon, in both cases, ignoring reason or not-thinking - as in meditation - and they both promise an end to suffering when suffering is the experience of the flow, we call reality.

Two objections: (1) Christianity does not deny the self. On the contrary, it postulates the self to be substantial and immortal (the soul) as it relates to God. (2) Buddhism does indeed deny the existence of an abiding self, because it argues that the self is a compound/conditioned phenomenon more akin to the idea of "flow" which you have explained. However, I don't see how this is nihilistic. The fundamental idea of nihilism is that existence is without purpose, value, and meaning, and that ethics is therefore relative and arbitrary. The tenets of both Buddhism and Christianity are very much at odds with nihilism.

The self is not an illusion but a process a towards the absent - a towards fulfillment that is never realized. This is the only necessity for life since any other assumption is based on superstition, religiuos mythology, and fearful hope. There is a Will TO Power or a Will TO life reflecting the basic truth of flowing towards an indeterminate goal which is absent and a mental construct or a non-existent absolute.

I find this view is quite compatible with Buddhist metaphysics. The self is a process. It is geared towards seeking, craving, will to power, etc. You will find that Buddhist philosophy is replete with similar ideas, for example in the definition of dukkha, tanha, bhava, and in the elaboration of the paticcasamuppada (dependent origination). The crucial difference is that Buddhism states that this process can be transcended.

Nihilism takes on many forms. As a childish mechanism it offers relief and a dogma preaching resentment towards the very essence of existence. In more mature religions it takes the form of extreme asceticism and self-denial; the denial of existence itself.

While I concede that this kind of thing happens when people practice religions, I suggest that it is based on a misunderstanding of the words of the masters by unqualified interpreters. Fortunately, Buddhism has the idea of a "middle-way" deeply embedded within its canon. It explicitly rejects extreme aceticism and self-denial as suitable spiritual practices. Likewise, it rejects extreme indulgence.

In all cases nihilism offers a promise for relief from suffering.

I think that's not called nihilism. More likely soteriology. Yes, religions are generally structured around the idea of salvation.

Cheers, Thomas

[visitor161]

Dear Satyr,

Your philosophy sounds rather Setian. You do realise that with ever expanding ego you occupy the space of others wishing the same, leading to conflict. I'm sorry to hear Satanism didn't work out for you.

The philosophy of nihilism, as proposed by the great teachers of the past such as the buddha, determines a path away from conflict and into mutual understanding, together with easing the pressure from natural life, which we must cherish in order to continue our existence upon this planet.

That you believe freedom is a delusion is you being confused. Even your philosophy teaches that every man is able to grow, be it via the ego, to their capable limits, without rules to determine their moral decency. Likewise all other men and women are given the same rights, to do as they want within a life that is given to them without having been asked for.

[Thomas Knierim]

Your philosophy sounds rather Setian.

Woops. Uncovered in the first round? :lol:

The philosophy of nihilism, as proposed by the great teachers of the past such as the buddha...

Buddhism in this case, not nihilism. Buddhism and nihilism don't have any common ground.

Cheers, Thomas

[j000han]

This is why it is said that one cannot serve two masters. Either one believes, opines and perceives and bounces back and forth between the conditions of the good and evil judgments that arise from the duality of such thinking, or one lives their thinking unconditionally, NOW.
B:
Transformation beyond conditions happens when one becomes the metaphor for the condition, subjectively experiencing the object, unconditionally loving (the condition), thereby 'being finished' with its 'message' its 'meaning' for the individual unit of consciousness.
J:
[Transformation beyond conditions happens when one becomes the metaphor for the condition]
I presume As in ‘I’ am ‘that’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphore
Structure
The metaphor, according to I. A. Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._A._Richards) in The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936), consists of two parts: the tenor and vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the subject from which the attributes are borrowed. Other writers employ the general terms ground and figure to denote what Richards identifies as the tenor and vehicle. Consider: All the world's a stage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_world%27s_a_stage):-
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare), As You Like It (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_You_Like_It), 2/7)
From the above example it is clear that the one part ‘I’of the metaphore
Is the tenor whereas the other part ‘that’, is the vehicle.
B:
Reoccuring images are subtle conditions-metaphors, appearing as objects within the field of awareness for understanding, for comprehension, for contemplation - for experiencing so as to be become one with the meaning of the metaphor-image. We know this has happened when the inner tension of 'what does this mean?' has passed, and the metaphor-image no longer arises within our field of awareness.
J:
Recently I cam across this:
<snipped>
http://www.wetenschap-eindtijd.com/homepage_english/mankind_s_thinking/heartbeat_cosmos/heartbeat_cosmos.html
The spirit of time is a strange phenomenon.
-It is really as strange as life itself.
-It is really as miraculous as live or our "evil"-being, as it was predicted that thinking is the mirror of knowing. It is not a coincidental joke. In the Dutch language life = leven and its mirror is nevel and means fog or mist.
-It is the same contradiction.
-It is as miraculous as cultures who appear and disappear in predictable cycles and always go from east to west.
-It is even more mysterious that during this cycle a predictable waves of different suffering colours this culture as well and owing to these illnesses and wars the spirit of time changes as well.
-It becomes even more magic by knowing that it all is related to magic energy, which enters our planet from "Al", "Allah", "God" and/or our Universe.
What is magic or spirituality even more than ignorance or unconsciousness?
^note we’re talking here about BS spiritualism and BS magic, which all has to do with not merely the desire for power but even more so the desire for control.^
I hope you can appreciate my not so conventional response.
greetz.:):loveyou:

[bito]

jooohan :)

Spirit projects Its Aliveness into mirror image and believes this mirror image - idea of self - is life. At the height of Its own ignorance, Spirit believes that that which is metaphor for Self only, is an actual (real) object to Its Subjective Awareness.

By reconciling each image unto Itself, by loving Self Unconditionally (resist not evil), Spirit ceases gazing into Its own mirror, eventually dropping it altogether.

Spirit is now Living Thought. :loveyou:

[Satyr]

Dear Satyr,

Your philosophy sounds rather Setian. You do realise that with ever expanding ego you occupy the space of others wishing the same, leading to conflict.And now look around you.
Do you see conflict, in every interaction?
Does not life require the death of another?
Do you, by occupying space, not deny it to another, just by simply being, evne if you just sit there passively?

I'm sorry to hear Satanism didn't work out for you.Oh my, a den of religiuos nuts.

It didn't "work out for me"?
Well, let's just assume that I am a "Satanist", because that's the little box you need to place me in to make sense of me and to then dismiss me, how do you figure that it hasn't?
Wishful thinking?
Blind hope? Faith in other words.
Selective reasoning?

The philosophy of nihilism, as proposed by the great teachers of the past such as the buddha, determines a path away from conflict and into mutual understanding, together with easing the pressure from natural life, which we must cherish in order to continue our existence upon this planet. How is there "mutual understanding" when there is no self to begin with, according to them?

If the mechanisms of life, existence, disturb you then feel free to follow the self-denying preaching of self-haters and life-haters.
The mantra of the weak and desperate: Oiaummmmmm.

That you believe freedom is a delusion is you being confused. Who is "confused" is evident to all but the obtuse and cowardly.

Let us take the concept of "freedom".
It denotes an independence.

Now, prove freedom by showing us one independent phenomenon.

If you are free, then feel free to fly by jumping off a building and feel free to live forever.

Even your philosophy teaches that every man is able to grow, be it via the ego, to their capable limits, without rules to determine their moral decency. What philosophy is that?
Have you figured me out already?

Likewise all other men and women are given the same rights, to do as they want within a life that is given to them without having been asked for.Realloy?
By whom are these "rights" given and who enforces them?
If all are equal then what is being selected, via natural selection, and how does evolution work when everyone is equal?

[Satyr]

Two objections: (1) Christianity does not deny the self. On the contrary, it postulates the self to be substantial and immortal (the soul) as it relates to God. Really?
And so the surrender of this "substantial and immortal soul" to an unseen and hypothetical perfect being is not a denial of self and of self-willing?

The childishness of Christianity, in relation to Buddhism, let's say, is that it assumes a self, and then surrenders it, as a way to salvation.
Buddhism denies self, altogether, and the world.

(2) Buddhism does indeed deny the existence of an abiding self, because it argues that the self is a compound/conditioned phenomenon more akin to the idea of "flow" which you have explained. However, I don't see how this is nihilistic. The fundamental idea of nihilism is that existence is without purpose, value, and meaning, and that ethics is therefore relative and arbitrary. The tenets of both Buddhism and Christianity are very much at odds with nihilism.It denies the reality of self and of the world, which it posits as an "illusion", masking emtiness.

It is nihilistic because it negates or degrades the very experience of existence and assumes an underlying more 'real' reality, which is devoid of suffering, because it is devoid of the very conduit of experience, the emerging self.

This merging self, is not compete, or substantial, as is often assumed, but a process and so forever becoming or striving to be, towards completion or the absolute, but only necessary as a process.

Need, and its exaggerated state of suffering/pain, is the very awarenes of this process; the very consciousness of the flow.
Now the only way to escape this is to either invent some Christian-like mythological absolute end, without giving up any of the desired aspects of this flow, such as consciousness and existence, or to deny the very self that experiences this flow thusly creating some kind of state of unaware awareness, which is a contradiction.
Meditation is an attempt at this state of the living-dead and the ascetic ideal it depends upon is also dependent on a framework of minds defending and feeding and caring for this mind that has denied the world and yet still validates it by breathing and by its heart beating.

I find this view is quite compatible with Buddhist metaphysics. The self is a process. It is geared towards seeking, craving, will to power, etc. You will find that Buddhist philosophy is replete with similar ideas, for example in the definition of dukkha, tanha, bhava, and in the elaboration of the paticcasamuppada (dependent origination). The crucial difference is that Buddhism states that this process can be transcended.Towards what?
This is where we part ways.

While I concede that this kind of thing happens when people practice religions, I suggest that it is based on a misunderstanding of the words of the masters by unqualified interpreters. Fortunately, Buddhism has the idea of a "middle-way" deeply embedded within its canon. It explicitly rejects extreme aceticism and self-denial as suitable spiritual practices. Likewise, it rejects extreme indulgence.And so it is comfortably undecided.
All things to all men.

I think that's not called nihilism. More likely soteriology. Yes, religions are generally structured around the idea of salvation.

Cheers, ThomasYes, and if you study the way this salvation is defined then you will find a common thread, akin to death.

Unconsciousness, self-denial, disatisfaction, a desire to avoid the experience of existence which is need/suffering.

[Thomas Knierim]

Meditation is an attempt at this state of the living-dead and the ascetic ideal it depends upon is also dependent on a framework of minds defending and feeding and caring for this mind that has denied the world and yet still validates it by breathing and by its heart beating.

That's a misunderstanding of what meditation is about, satyr, perhaps you should just try it out sometime. I've heard the argument before, although not in the context you are putting it. Meditation is not about abandoning of the world. It appears to be that only on the outside. Meditation is a practice or a technique targeted at the development of insight (vipassana), training of introspective and contemplative capacities. The emphasis on awareness actually constitutes the opposite of turning away from the world. It rather turns its fullest attention towards it, or rather the phenomenal immediacy of it. In fact, meditation may be the straightest path to what your signature states: "know thyself".

Cheers, Thomas

[francis]

At the very core of man's vanity, ergo his suffering, is his taking of thought as if it belongs to him. "My opinion, my perception, my conjecture, my conclusion, my observation...", all declarations of the ego, wearing with pride that which is not to be worn at all...

Hi bito, I get where you are coming from. Thanks for sharing your experiences. I agree it’s thoughts of “I, me, and mine” that are the root of all suffering in this world because they lead to greed, anger and violence.

Though, I’m surprised that some people still relate Buddhism to nihilism, because nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps they have never heard of the Bodhisattva ideal- enlightenment for all beings - or experienced bodhicitta.

Satyr, I get that you relate Buddhism to nihilism. But apart from that, I don’t get what you are trying to say at all. Do you have a point?

When I say 'I' or self, i am speaking of a process which has a history, a becomnig, made up of experiences and information of many kinds, such as genetic information, held together by memory. Memory being the storage of this information into simplified, generalized data, made up of sensual interpretations, frozen into artificial absolutes (abstractions) which can then be symbolically exchanged and shared and used, through language (math being a language) and so forth.

So you basically have it. The “I or self” is nothing more than a robot programmed by survival instincts as conditioned through the environment.

Once I got that, I tried to find a way to “break free” from conditioned existence. For me, this was through Buddhist mindfulness and insight meditation. When you start to become more mindful you can start to wake up, and see things as they really are; not as you are conditioned to see them.

If you really want to you can escape the prison of the mind.

Wake and smell the flowers.

Hope that helps :)

[bito]

Though, I’m surprised that some people still relate Buddhism to nihilism, because nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps they have never heard of the Bodhisattva ideal- enlightenment for all beings - or experienced bodhicitta.

I am not surprised that there is fear when one first realizes the temporary nature of their conditioned self. If we are honest with ourselves, we experience this fear long before we arrive at the point where we seek 'enlightened' thought (such as Buddhism - one example of many) to release us from this fear.

As children, we are born into our conditioning, and yet, we are never far from the awareness that 'there is something rotten in Denmark.' We are told we are loved unconditionally, and yet, from all sides and all fronts, conditions are being applied to our awareness. The result is that within our conscious awareness, there is a constant war going on - the war between our awareness of our (Pure) Aliveness - the Law of the Spirit of Life, and that of our conditioned thought body - the laws of society, of man.

Our fear is that if we release our conditioning, and live wholly from our Aliveness, that life will disappear, for we have been conditioned to believe that our thoughts about life are life itself. Conditioning runs very deep, generations upon generations deep, passed on in our DNA and reinforced every day we live in the beliefs of our 'own little corner of the world.' No wonder we feel fear when we 'hear' the call to transcend this idea called 'self' so as to re-discover our Aliveness. ‘Nihilism’ is the thought system that has arisen to try and explain/understand this fear so as to avoid experiencing this fear and passing through its ‘fire.’ Like all thought systems, Buddhism included, they are but 'thought arms to hold us' until the fire that is the fear of death has passed.

If self were not afraid of its temporary existence, it would not come to discussion boards such as these and protest 'the threats' against its survival.

[Flux]

Satyr: The problem with characterising all soteriological elements of religions and all desires for trancendence in philosophy as nihilistic is that such charges are apt to reflex back on one's own position. I believe that all of humany's goals, be they heaven, Nirvana, or greater technological acheivment, spring from a simple desire to improve one's condition. Charging all such goals as being rooted in nihilistic denial of reality is a self-defeating argument. Tell me--am I correct in saying that you would have us abandon such lofty aspirations, all desires tainted with a wasted yearning for trancendence, union with a "beyond"? If I have correctally understood your position as thus stated, then I hold that your charges of nihilism are easily turned back upon yourself. For what is it to percieve harm in longings for trancendence if not to raise the lack of such longings as a desireable alternative, and improvement in condition? You would have us trancend trancendence, as it were; you offer a vision of a primal world without superstition, religion, or "unattainable" goals.

Quick question--could you explain to me what you mean by absolutes and absolutists?

Bito--
a. Fruitful discussion consists of either
1. using our inherently dualistic language to make conceptual distinctions and statements about facts
or
2. in trying to convey some state of mind or aesthetic sense through the use of paradox, metaphor, and nebulous terms.

b. You admit that the matter of which you speak is something beyond intellegence, discrimination, and conceptualization. From this I conclude that your words are not intended to be fruitful in the first sense of conceptualizing and discriminating. I further conclude that you intend to "point to truth" as the Zenists would say.

c. You have placed your metaphores, paradoxes, and nebulous (undefinable) terms in an arena wherein it is currently being analyzed conceptually. Your subject matter (if I may use the term loosley) being beyond discriminative conciousness, you respond with further metaphores, paradoxes, and vague terms.

d. Considering the length of the debate, I conclude that understanding is not being generated or aided by said metaphores except to those who agreed with you before the discussion even began.

e. Ergo, this is no longer a fruitful discussion as it's being carried out. Some are playing hopscotch and others checkers--the result is rather peculiar when attempted simultaneously.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

It seems to me that the Buddhist model of suffering only describes certain kinds of suffering. Yes alot of suffering is caused by desire and by extension ego. But what about random chance? I am mainly referring to physical pain. If a criminal hits me on the head it hurts. This has no connection to my desires. I may not want to get hit on the head and if I see the criminal running up to me I might suffer the Buddhist pain. But the actual hit will cause pain. The Buddhists seem to try and repair this with two ideas: karma and self control. Karma has that I suffer any amount of suffering that I put into the world. And the only reason I would put pain in the world is because of desire. But does it really work like this? If I get hit on the head I suppose karma says I introduced that suffering into the world. But I never knew that criminal. I never did anything wrong to him. And that would seem to be the only other motive for his hitting me besides his wanting my money. To repair this they say the suffering was from a past life. But why? How does make it any closer to giving the robber a revenge motive? Moving on to self control. "If you were a Buddha, with no desire and perfect control over the mind you would feel no pain." I don't quite know what to think of this one. I mean it might be possible if it is possible to be a Buddha. But can we really overcome mental and linguistic constructs and keep it that way? Sure we can do it for some moments in meditation but after a while we come back to our old thought process. Also somehow I think even if I was meditating a hit on the head would still hurt. Is it possible to have a Buddha's self control?

[Taeguk]

It seems to me that the Buddhist model of suffering only describes certain kinds of suffering. Yes alot of suffering is caused by desire and by extension ego. But what about random chance? I am mainly referring to physical pain. If a criminal hits me on the head it hurts. This has no connection to my desires.

There is a fundamental difference between pain and suffering (tanha). Buddhism promises the extinction of suffering, not the extinction of pain. As the Marines say, "Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional."

Getting hit on the head will produce a physiological response; that is pain. Depending on how you respond to the pain, there may or may not be suffering.

[Satyr]

Being that this may be my last response, given that I find the mechanics of the forum slow, for some reason, and my old forum has finally corrected its server problems, I will respond in short.

Satyr: The problem with characterising all soteriological elements of religions and all desires for trancendence in philosophy as nihilistic is that such charges are apt to reflex back on one's own position. I believe that all of humany's goals, be they heaven, Nirvana, or greater technological acheivment, spring from a simple desire to improve one's condition. Charging all such goals as being rooted in nihilistic denial of reality is a self-defeating argument. Tell me--am I correct in saying that you would have us abandon such lofty aspirations, all desires tainted with a wasted yearning for trancendence, union with a "beyond"? If I have correctally understood your position as thus stated, then I hold that your charges of nihilism are easily turned back upon yourself. For what is it to percieve harm in longings for trancendence if not to raise the lack of such longings as a desireable alternative, and improvement in condition? You would have us trancend trancendence, as it were; you offer a vision of a primal world without superstition, religion, or "unattainable" goals.That's it, I find all human ideals to be unattainable and even if they were attainable they would result in an end and so inertia.

The ideal represents a kind of completion or attainment of the absolute/perfection/stability and so would make existence, movement/change/time obsolete.

I percieve existence as being a towards, exemplified by the ideal as a kind of ambiguous marker with no real substance, characterizing the individual by his desire to attain it, but being unattainable and a self-annihilating prospect.

I percieve the embracing of life as the attainment of a level of power/strength that makes suffering tolerable, but never absent.

For me suffering is but a degree of need, just as pain is.

Need is the normal state of becomnig which, if left un-satiated or when it reaches a level where it threatens the organism or the emerging unity's cohesion, it is felt as suffering/pain.
In essence it represents a measurment of the unity's access to the energies or resources necessary to maintain its cohesion and well-being.

For this reason I admire the ascetic that uses this discipline to attain the tolerance and discipline to make the experience of existence more profound by being able to cope with it.

The ascetic that uses this discipline to escape or to avoid the experience of life, through denial of self, not as a in controlled athleticism/asceticism, so as to deny the very self that makes the experience possible is, for me, a nihilist pretending to be a lover of life.

The Christian accepts the existence of a self, just so as to make it guilty of sin and so to sacrifice it as evidence of its loyalty to a super-being; the philosophical nihilist or, in many cases, the Buddhist, does not even accept the existence of a self, so as to achieve a different kind of salvation.

Quick question--could you explain to me what you mean by absolutes and absolutists?I mean the state of perfection, absolute stability, singularity, oneness, completion, the here/now which eradicated change and implies a finality, a temporal end - inertia.

The perfect would not change or create since there would be nothing to change into and no need to create, since creation is an act of need.
We sense the essence of reality and the world in ourselves - the self being a phenomenon produced by the reality we call universe, and so it mirrors it and is felt as need.
This is the sensation of lack or absence. It is the quintessential expression of existence.

Now fare well and good luck to all. :unsure:

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

There is a fundamental difference between pain and suffering (tanha). Buddhism promises the extinction of suffering, not the extinction of pain. As the Marines say, "Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional."

Getting hit on the head will produce a physiological response; that is pain. Depending on how you respond to the pain, there may or may not be suffering.

Thank you for making me aware of that. For some reason I never knew of that distinction before.

[francis]

Good points bito, thanks for starting the discussion.

I should have been more specific earlier, when I said I was surprised that some people still relate Buddhism to nihilism. I was alluding to the compassionate nature of Buddhism, as in the development of loving kindness through Metta Bhavana meditation.

I am not surprised that there is fear when one first realizes the temporary nature of their conditioned self. If we are honest with ourselves, we experience this fear long before we arrive at the point where we seek 'enlightened' thought (such as Buddhism - one example of many) to release us from this fear.

That’s true bito. There is a lot of fear, and denial, associated with self development. Nevertheless, many are able to see beyond conditioned existence, but it does take courage to overcome the fear of loosing your “self”.

As children, we are born into our conditioning, and yet, we are never far from the awareness that 'there is something rotten in Denmark.' We are told we are loved unconditionally, and yet, from all sides and all fronts, conditions are being applied to our awareness. The result is that within our conscious awareness, there is a constant war going on - the war between our awareness of our (Pure) Aliveness - the Law of the Spirit of Life, and that of our conditioned thought body - the laws of society, of man.

I think there are a few things here. Firstly, I’d suggest what you are alluding to "as an awareness that something is rotten in Denmark", could also be seen as Dukkha. By Dukkha, I mean a general unsatisfactoriness with life. As to the war within the mind, I'd suggest it’s just the “self/ego” or basically our memories looking for meaning in life. For me, it was the “mental chatter” that got me into self development in the first place. I’ve found mindfulness meditation to be a most beneficial antidote to the chatter.

Our fear is that if we release our conditioning, and live wholly from our Aliveness, that life will disappear, for we have been conditioned to believe that our thoughts about life are life itself. Conditioning runs very deep, generations upon generations deep, passed on in our DNA and reinforced every day we live in the beliefs of our 'own little corner of the world.' No wonder we feel fear when we 'hear' the call to transcend this idea called 'self' so as to re-discover our Aliveness. ‘Nihilism’ is the thought system that has arisen to try and explain/understand this fear so as to avoid experiencing this fear and passing through its ‘fire.’ Like all thought systems, Buddhism included, they are but 'thought arms to hold us' until the fire that is the fear of death has passed.

I understand what you are saying about fear, but Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, where as we are discussing the purpose of life.

If self were not afraid of its temporary existence, it would not come to discussion boards such as these and protest 'the threats' against its survival.

That really made me laugh :) I think it’s good that people come to places like The Big View because it shows that they can see more to life than mundane existence.

cheers francis :)

[bito]

I understand what you are saying about fear, but Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, where as we are discussing the purpose of life.

When one drops every ideology, there is only life living life through you, in you, as you, moment by moment. So simple is this realization, so glorious is the living of this realization, and yet man is determined to repress and suppress his living glory by adopting something called 'a philosophy' or 'a religion' so he can think about life.

Crazy, but true. :)

[francis]

When one drops every ideology, there is only life living life through you, in you, as you, moment by moment. So simple is this realization, so glorious is the living of this realization, and yet man is determined to repress and suppress his living glory by adopting something called 'a philosophy' or 'a religion' so he can think about life.

Crazy, but true. :)
Hi bito, crazy, but true.

I think I get what you mean. We do look for purpose of life, and make meaning out of everything. If you are referring to being mindful and living in the moment, then how do you keep focused?

[jufa]

From the womb of Mother Earth until she reclaim the body of her child the "dust of the ground," which she had covered man's outer exterior with leaving man's inner thought body exposed to the eyes of the universal Spirit of creation, man believes he is invincible. Man's lifestyle of living in the ignorance of self-righteousness and the duality of universal human thoughts forms he inherited from his ancestors, inevitably cause men to believe life is held within the palm of their hands. A belief which is crystallized in all human kind, and produce the self-righteous religious thoughts of pride and vanity in man's mind and consciousness. A pride and vanity which can never find completeness because, in the world of matter, death seals man in the sphere of influential feelings of confused thinking which governs what he believes and acknowledge. The only difference, in this state of being, is man does not have a material body, nor human elements where "men have set up their idols in their hearts, and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their face" (Ezek.14:3).

Because men believe they hold the world within the palm of their hands, they become satisfied in the logic and reasoning of the world. Why should we seek to find the wholeness of our existence they proclaim, when we are satisfied and happy in our pride and vanity? When we die, if we die, we are no more, so eat, drink, and be merry. This attitude was the mechanism which changed "the truth of God into a lie." It is also the mechanism which changed the world from the mentality of the dark age, to the industrial revolution, and the space age. But it did not change man's consciousness, nor his selfish possessive pride which "worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." jufa

Never give power to anything a person believes is their souce of strength - jufa

[bito]

I think I get what you mean. We do look for purpose of life, and make meaning out of everything. If you are referring to being mindful and living in the moment, then how do you keep focused?

Hi Francis :)

Man looks for purpose and meaning because he has lost touch with his spirit nature, his pure aliveness.

If being mindful is to be full of mind, then no, that is not what I am referring to when I say that in the dropping of ideology, Life lives through you (unhindered). It is the mind that is bedazzled by idea, so if it is idea that you wish to transcend, then the idea 'mind' must also be transcended.

Living NOW is to be in a state of 'poised' rest, allowing the answer to one's question of living to arise of its own accord. This is the experience of union with Source, of I and the Father are One, of Buddha nature.

[francis]

Hi bito,

I’m not sure I get what you mean by “spirit nature”.

Hi Francis :)

Man looks for purpose and meaning because he has lost touch with his spirit nature, his pure aliveness.

If being mindful is to be full of mind, then no, that is not what I am referring to when I say that in the dropping of ideology, Life lives through you (unhindered). It is the mind that is bedazzled by idea, so if it is idea that you wish to transcend, then the idea 'mind' must also be transcended.

I don’t think being mindful is being full of mind. Quite the contrary, I think it’s about escaping the prison of the mind. So to me, being aware and practicing mindfulness meditation, as in the Buddhist tradition, is a way to escape the prison of the mind. Or to put it another way, transcend conditioned existence.

Living NOW is to be in a state of 'poised' rest, allowing the answer to one's question of living to arise of its own accord. This is the experience of union with Source, of I and the Father are One, of Buddha nature.

I may have missed you point, but I’d suggest that if I entered into a state 'poised' rest, then it would be a long time before anything arose.

The closest I’ve ever got to understanding the “Source” was when I learnt about bodhichitta. The bodhichitta experience reminded me of what Christians call “holy spirit”. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “spirit nature”.

The truth is out there ;)

[bito]

Hi Francis

I don’t think being mindful is being full of mind. Quite the contrary, I think it’s about escaping the prison of the mind. So to me, being aware and practicing mindfulness meditation, as in the Buddhist tradition, is a way to escape the prison of the mind. Or to put it another way, transcend conditioned existence.

Thanks for the clarification. Strange choice of word, though, to describe a method of transcending the prison of the mind - mind*full*ness. Human interpretation, you gotta love it!

I may have missed you point, but I’d suggest that if I entered into a state 'poised' rest, then it would be a long time before anything arose.

In a state of 'poised' rest, what arises is unconditioned thought. Long time, short time - who's counting? ;)

The closest I’ve ever got to understanding the “Source” was when I learnt about bodhichitta. The bodhichitta experience reminded me of what Christians call “holy spirit”. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “spirit nature”.

:thumbsup:

P.S. In spirit, there is no perhaps :)

[francis]

Hi bito,

Thanks for that.

Spirit is universal, and before ideology there was spirit.

Cheers :)

[bito]

Francis, you are not separate from Spirit, therefore, before ideology is YOU.