been meaning to ask?
ask.


rainbows & whirled peas
nathan

the above posted: triplethunk: ask triplethink 11/15/13 8:26 PM
_______________________________________________________________
Asked and Answered; So Far:

Triplethink Transporter Deck

December 17, 2013
________________________________________________________________
the below index and Rant posted to all active triplethink threads as of the above posted date:

Triplethink:
- for the moment, here is a supplementary index to triplethink threads throughout the DhO.
This list will be amended to the first post of any and all active triplethink initiated threads.

threads about triplethink

triplethunk: ask triplethink

tripleops - methodology

tripleplay

tripleslam - Welcome to the Arena

triplethink initiated threads

? = Atman ><?> Zoo Station<? = .Camp Concentration =>

KAMMA SURFER SUTTA - How to work to 0 - Outflow and Inflow

Inclining towards = VOID LOGOS => VOID STATION => the Deathless

Universal Scalar Bubble Nesting

SIT Tank - Tank Time - Tank Talk - Tank Tips

DOB - Dhamma Oceanic Bestiary

See Also:

Karmic view of war

______________________________________________________________________________________

A note about the ever slower-ness of computers and computer networks

It is a shame, but computers just get dumber. I could see it coming as the stuff got rolling but I have to admit I was disappointed at first.

I don't know if anyone else is old enough to remember this, but there was a time when transistors were "new" and we used tubes to do what transistors do now.

Anyways I was already into electronics (in grade 5, age 10) when the first silicon chip became available ( the 555 timer chip ).

I don't remember what I paid for it at radio shack but I had a bag full and I well understand what this technology is and is not.

I remember holding it in my hand at the time, kid that I was, bag full of marvel comics in the other hand ( circa. 1973 ) and I could "see it", see it all, all of this, that IS, right now. The 52 inch plasma screen that I am watching a re-run of an old SNL
Christmas Special on right now, the Mac Book Pro, the digital audio playing "George Winston's - December", the remote controls, the whole ninety-nine yards. I could see way back then, in an instant, what digital tech was/is capable of, and also I could just as easily see what it was/is not capable of. The net, the tech, all of it, right down to the laser temperature meter, all OBVIOUS.

It has it's uses, many uses, but it is not capable of bringing any human being even a hairs width closer to AWAKENING TO THEIR OWN NATURE.

Just saying, it does nothing for that. Not a thing.

AWAKENING
IS
A RETURN TO YOUR SENSES
AND
A RETURN TO SENSIBILITY

I highly recommend it, almost urge people to do it, but I won't ever push or insist or compel anyone to do or think or feel or imagine ANYTHING.

Right now I have state of the art computers. I have a direct Fibre Optic Line into the backbone of the Net.

My Computer has NEVER BEEN SLOWER.

Take note of this, it is worth knowing.

OK, RANT COMPLETED resume normal life...........

- triplethink

Hi Nathan,

What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?

Wow this is like Dear Abby for Buddhists.

Hi Triplethink,

How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry (losing sense of time)? I hear from different people that access concentration is all that is needed and others that you need up to the 8th jhana. I've also heard that the 4th jhana for 1st path and that 2nd path needs the 8th.

A final note:

On the use of the word fuck as I and some others have variously employed it previous to this date.

I take the primary implication of this verb to be "to penetrate."
I take the usage to imply that such an act of penetration is undertaken correctly and under suitable and or appropriate conditions and circumstances, such that a form of penetration was, is or will be successful and therefore it may be assumed to be sanctioned and or effective;
or that such an act of penetration is undertaken incorrectly and under unsuitable and or inappropriate conditions and circumstances, such that a form of penetration was, is or will be unsuccessful and or may be assumed to be unsanctioned and or ineffective, therefore constituting not only a type of penetration but also a type of violation.

I had employed the word previously from time to time in the early days of the DhO 1.0 as did many others at that time who were likewise early adopters of this forum. At that time the DhO was primarily a 'secular forum' and there was a rush to engage with the very avant-garde nature of this site. The orthodox "buddhist" realms can be confining for some and there are many with important questions and concerns who were and are very frustrated within this kind of climate. Here we have encouraged an open dialog with truth and it my hope that this openness will continue, so far as embracing truth is concerned. At the same time, only interminable fools assume other people to be infinitely capable of tolerating their futility beyond the bounds of mortal exasperation.

My advice here then remains fundamentally the same, one must penetrate the mystery of one's own mind and also this;
it is never wise to assume one has encompassed the minds of any others until one truly has so done. Only a fool would attempt to begin to penetrate the mysteries of their own mind by means of attempting a futile violation of the mind of another. Given sufficient appropriate attentions one may eventually encompass enough of the mind of another to develop the appropriate forms of respect and some very faithful understandings.

triplethink /// 2REM / 2WIT / Touche'd & a microphone

________________________________
RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink
11/25/13 6:42 AM as a reply to triple think.

Originally posted on 11/16/13 and entirely unrevised, amended or redacted (in any way except possibly for any minor spelling or grammatical correction, but I do not think even this was or is so) previously to the given amendment.
________________________________

hi all

I asked Daniel to hook me up here at DhO again in response to these majik words uttered by him, "Man, I wish Triplethink was still around…".

So as for 'powers', there you have it, 'causal evidence'.

If you are looking for a 'dear abbot' kind of thing, you are still looking for it.

On the faeries thing for instance. Who really needs evidence? Scientists I suppose. People who work specifically with substantive and replicable empirical evidence. Them and people who oddly enough believe in a totality of ideas, and who speculate that together with some sort of a comprehensive ideology, they can establish and impose a supreme ideological totalitarianism upon the realms of forms.

If this is you then kindly go fuck yourself.

[This is a Vital, Crucially Relevant and Most Important (my express position) Note on Ideological Totalism: later added to the immediately above. Henceforth further expanded and explicated as:

If this is you (an ideological totalitarian), then (please abandon this tactic and in any other way) more kindly go fuck yourself, and indeed all of us.

(The implication of the term "fuck" here is to penetrate, and in a very similar sense to make contact with, know, or better to know and or in a related sense to potentially and or in fact to harm.)

As I can not and will not make any effort to satisfy the likes of you.

("You", as with previously was "yourself" here implying apparently or ostensibly any or all who might be exceptionally ignorant or delusional in this same respect.)

As this is, and shall remain, until I directly perceive, or I might be thoroughly persuaded otherwise, I am now and will continue to remain thoroughly and entirely convinced, our individually and collectively Biggest Problem.

That it is this: Ideologically Totalitarian Expressions and Impositions, from us and upon us, which was, is and will continue to be personally or individually and or socially or collectively our Biggest Problem(s).

Which is The Persisting and Persistent Biggest Problem, in any and all known or knowable forms in any and all known and knowable times, in this Human and in this Terrestrial Realm, which have been, are and shall continue to be, in the widest and deepest senses of these considerations, profound sources of suffering and of considerable unnecessary and needless pain, as a consequence of practicing any kind or type of individual or collective governance on the basis of such ignorance and delusions, in any such ways.

All of this, the immediately above, has been later edited and revised considerably since the initial post. Following the proceeding demonstrations of just such effects and affects, even in a climate and atmosphere already sensitive to such causes, conditions and the related and relevant concerns, to one or another extents; and in a subsequent effort for much greater clarity and directness.

My sincere apologies to any and all for this, my lack of consideration and any oversights in these and or any other regards, and any suffering or discomfort this lack of the same on my part has caused, as this thread amply shall demonstrate henceforth and, at a minimum, if not indefinitely, for some period of time in innumerable ways.

May any and all who recognize hereby or by any other means the error of these ways, Repent, Reform, Pick up their Mats and Walk, and Go Forth, henceforth, to Sin No More. For only in such a way, may one or all, truly and fully, lastingly, be Forgiven, Saved and or in any such or similar way be Enlightened.

-triplethink 11/25/13]

So if you are a scientific materialist of any kind, good luck with it. You may find it helpful to note that the 'hard sciences' have comprehensively abandoned scientific materialism to the fields of sociology and literary criticism and could conceivably look for your 'answers' there. Otherwise why would you require empirical evidence of faeries? What for? Are you an Icelandic legislator or a Thai real estate developer?

As I see this, if you don't see fairies or anything else like this with your own eyes or via some other kind of related sense faculty then you should count yourself fortunate and carry on. If you do have experiences with what seems like some sort of intelligent or animate beings of some sort that aren't like experiences with humans or animals or whatever, be these real or imagined, then you have a different sort of concern. I would expect your concerns in those cases would not be the same as the concerns of a scientific researcher or cosmological theorist. I would expect your concerns, if any, would be more immediate, along the lines of 'what is this now?'.

In the event you have found you are being addressed by a floating holographic head or have found your mind has merged with some sort of millions of years old entity with a body that resembles a field of high voltage current in the range of about 11000 volts or some other weirdness like this then I would expect your actual concerns to be more or less along the lines of 'WTF!'

To be honest, I have had and do have experiences like this. On enough occasions to have had more time then perhaps most have had to investigate it. Such that I can broadly suggest that on any given occasion with these sorts of phenomena one or two or ten of any number of things may be going on. It will depend on various interrelated conditions. Developing any better sense of how and what is happening, for better or worse, is going to depend on how skillfully or unskillfully the person experiencing it will respond to whatever is happening for them.

One could go online or to a cafe and collect opinions about it. What does one have then? A collection of opinions and arguments. So great, if that is satisfying for you, go right ahead and make your list and if you must, pick one opinion and argument and pretend that is your answer. If that is not satisfying for you (and why should it be?) then you have really only one hope for satisfaction in relation to understanding any of this kind of phenomena. To develop insight and understanding into this, as with anything else related to your own body and mind, you are going to have to comprehensively, exhaustively and (always) directly investigate it until it is directly understood.

It is important going into an investigation like this to consider with as much clarity as possible the role of ignorance. If there were no ignorance then there would be no arising of questions would there? So consider carefully what you may know for certain. Anything? No? Fine, so long as you are clear on that. [Where do I set the bar for the certainty of insights, knowledges and understandings? "Such and such has these qualities and functions, it is such not ever otherwise, always, and may be repeatedly and consistently verified as such." You will need to set your own bar wherever is genuinely satisfying for you.] Have a few solid clues on how your mind works and how your body and senses work? Good, get clear and clearer on that. What is certain about this insight and understanding, what is not? Have any insight or understanding into how life, the universe and everything works in general? Really? Ok, if so, clarify that understanding and its basis and make certain it is an entirely inviolable insight and understanding. Is it really? Wow, lucky you, ok factor that in. Is it not? Good you have come closer to correctly determining the actual effective extents of your ignorance. Now, what do you still not understand and as or possibly more importantly (in relation to y/our limited resources) why would it be of primary importance to understand this or that in particular? With stuff in the faery category often a more important question is found to be something along the lines of 'What more foundational determinations giving rise to what sort of understanding might actually be necessary before I might honestly understand this or that.'

If you have honestly clarified and reviewed what you absolutely do know and what you absolutely do not know then you should be a step closer to recognizing how whatever this is that you do not understand stands in relation to whatever it is that you do understand.

As very brief example lets suppose now that we are unsure if this ten foot flaming demon with the ice cream cone and the bullwhip is actually real and standing there with us in our meditation hut or merely a projection of our mind. Well if we have some understanding of that mind of ours and some understanding of how to manipulate it we can investigate to what extent those manipulations of our perceptions bear on the perception of this critter. Are there functional relationships? What are the functional natures of these relationships?

Investigating as directly and skillfully as possible is the most viable candidate for an approach we can undertake with the aim of arriving at a satisfying understanding. One may eventually develop insights and these may become reliable kinds of knowledge and that knowledge may eventually give rise to understanding and satisfaction. Unless ignorance or any kinds of assumed second hand insight, knowledge and understanding in these or any other regards is satisfying for you, these questions and these answers are entirely in your hands and any progress or regress in understanding begins and ends in your hands.

In my experience thus far it would appear there are very likely no dependently conditioned/ing and compounded/ing phenomena that won't eventually give up it's secrets to the relentless application of skillful, methodical and exhaustive investigation. Sometimes it takes very little time and sometimes it takes a very very long time.

In my experience any insight, knowledge and understanding satisfying to my mind are all forged by and within my own mind from the raw stuff of existing. To make progress with this requires always referring back to ignorance and being ruthlessly honest about the extent of that ignorance and referring very carefully to whatever margins of insight, knowledge and understanding you have already cultivated which narrowly or widely frame that ignorance, whether that insight, knowledge and understanding are absent, initial and tentative or comprehensively and inviolably certain, and working very carefully from there.

I'm not back here at DhO to paint pretty pictures. I don't have a map or a cosmology to offer. Maps and cosmologies don't work for me. I've been investigating, first hand, for a long time. For better or worse, from way back I've taken a form follows function approach. I wanted to know the hows and calculated that whats and whys, if these mattered at all, might one day follow from there.

I've discovered more than a few things. I know where many of the metaphorical buttons, dials and levers are in my mind and body and may by extension be able to suggest an approximation of how, where or why similar phenomena may be examined within and by means of your mind and body. I've traced quite a bit of this out quite carefully and I've been re-examining it continually for a long time. So I can offer suggestions for ways to investigate and/or suggest when, where and how quite a few of the dependent conditions involved in the productions of apparent phenomena can be investigated in the aim of cultivating insights, knowledges and understandings.

If only direct, first hand knowledge and understanding satisfy you and for you most all of the rest is mere talk (with occasional hand gestures), then you are like me and I can probably offer some perspectives that will aid you with your own thorough and comprehensive investigation with the aim of arriving at an understanding. Otherwise, I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views. I have no map, have attained nothing, claim that I mostly don't care and that I am no one. So if that seems helpful, ask away, otherwise, go ask 'abbot'.

hi sawfoot

To clarify, Triplethunk is not Dear Abbot. Also Triplethunk is not a wiktionary. For wiktionary see: Wiktionary.

Triplethunk can be taken to mean 'what Triplethink knows about _______.'

For more info on how triplethink thunks refer to the previously posted introductory comments.

So, Triplethink may know some how about it or may not know some how about it but perhaps will look into how it and then again also may not look into how it.

How difference between what and what? Could you possibly be more vague?

gew gew guh chew
triplethink
___________________________
The above was posted in this thread in this same post (post number five) at some time on 11/16/13 before any and all other subsequent unamended or to my knowledge any subsequent posting on anyone's part, in this thread, apart from my initial and otherwise unamended post number four (and any of my previously amended subsequent posts which would be a one or two previously or still under considerable revision or amendment somewhere around post number 90 or so.

The following is posted as an additional amendment to the above, posted on 11/25/13 by nathan/triplehink.

It is an amendment previous to any other possible further revision or amendment of any otherwise originally subsequent post related to the initially subsequent posts by myself or anyone else, to my knowledge.
____________________

As the most profoundly endemic and globally widespread example of Delusion see my immediately preceding amendments to my post above, number four in this thread.

As the best definition I can provide, as of this same date, 11/25/13, for Enlightenment, in Theory and in Practice see my definitions in post number ten of this thread:

RE: In your opinion, what do you believe enlightenment to be?
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4917585

thus twice now
-triplethunked

I agree that scientific theory can just be new dogma, but there is advancement and that requires OBSERVATION with tools beyond our senses. We still have things like Dark Matter which constitute a large portion of the universe to understand and we haven't found a "graviton" to explain gravity. We aren't likely to know what happened before the big bang (if anything), how many dimensions there are and how many universes there are, in our lifetimes. There's a place for science as long as there's continued improvements for observation. We don't have to know everything to learn more. Theory should never be fixed dogma.

For the more outlandish claims of the powers I would be interested in studies that compared dopamine levels for people with amazing concentration levels and compare that to schizophrenics and their dopamine levels. There's probably 0 funding for something like that. I certainly wouldn't recommend testing someone who thinks they can walk on water with a deep lake. LOL! I do believe that a person can manipulate their perceptions to think the puddle they are standing in is solid and not wet. That just shows the amygdala isn't too smart. People can be sexually turned on when they feel pain proving a malleability in perception.

Oh well I just have to ask elsewhere on my other question. Dear Abbot...

hi Richard

Nope, this is like dear abbey not for not buddhists.

Classical what? What this reads like to me is a whole lot of labels for stuff that does not interest me and I can't see why it should. How much of whatever for what? How does a quantitative measure of whatever relate to the other what? And that means what? Different people say whatever? Whatever for?

Try to think of me as a not very bright person. Lets try again if you like. What is concentration, to your mind and what might you seek to know and understand about how concentration is related to whatever else?

P's and Q's
triplethink

No worries. Just pretend I never posted.

hi Richard

You are not quoting me when you write "scientific theory can just be new dogma". I will suggest that you cannot imply that I agree with your statement as a suitable definition for what science can or can not be. As for the statement, "there is advancement and that requires OBSERVATION with tools beyond our senses", with the necessary specific qualifications, why would anyone disagree with such an argument?

Yawn. Moving on, "We still have things like Dark Matter..." Think about this phrase, seriously, just think about it. Is that so? Uh huh. You, someone, is certain that they, we "have" these "things"? "...which constitute a large portion of the universe..." You, someone, also knows it to be an absolute certainty that this and that are so and not otherwise. Uh huh. Or no wait, presumably hopes to one day, "...to understand..." Ah yes that sounds more probable. And, "and we haven't found a "graviton" to explain gravity." And we must have a what to explain what? Must we? What if we don't. Are we going to just stop everything else?

So, "We aren't likely to know what happened before the big bang (if anything), how many dimensions there are and how many universes there are, in our lifetimes."

Oh God, how can I go on living, not knowing these things! Wait a minute, I have no idea why I would need to be concerned with this at all. Thank you Jesus.

About this, "For the more outlandish claims of the powers I would be interested in studies that compared dopamine levels for people with amazing concentration levels and compare that to schizophrenics and their dopamine levels. There's probably 0 funding for something like that. {I would like to think so -triplethink} I certainly wouldn't recommend testing someone who thinks they can walk on water with a deep lake. LOL! {Seems like the most effective way to me -triplethink} I do believe that a person can manipulate their perceptions to think the puddle they are standing in is solid and not wet. {Perhaps this could serve as an example of a what Sawfoot refers to as delusion? -triplethink} That just shows the amygdala isn't too smart. {Are you sure this is evidence of that ? Are you a practicing MD or a PhD clinical researcher or something Richard? Might we examine the evidence? -triplethink} People can be sexually turned on when they feel pain proving a malleability in perception." {What is proof of what? Think of me as considerably slower to pick up on something than this allows for. In my case you would have to methodically explain such a proof, as if to a child. -triplethink}

all the blissed
triplethink

hi Richard

No worries. Awesome. Good to hear.

Must I? Why pretend? I haven't objected to your/anyone's posting, post whatever you like wherever you like. Thank you for your concern.

haveaniceday

nathan

Y' know, just throwing this out there for anyone's consideration. People may often suggest that the world we collectively think we live in is constructed on the basis of our considerable shared conceptions of that world. In this regard I propose these additional suggestions, that the world we think we live in may also to a considerable extent be constructed on the basis of our shared misconceptions and on the basis of considerable differences amid our collective conceptions and misconceptions of this world.

Oh this is so much fun so far! I want to join in, and thus I will do so forthwith.

1) I've always been curious. Is that you in your avatar picture with a tiger there? What's the story behind that one?

2) What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from.

3) Also more of a curiosity question: what have you been discovering lately? Like in the last year or two. What're you looking into? What're you finding? Changing any preconceived notions you previously had? How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?

EDIT: Prompted by your latest post, 4) What've you found out in your experience (well obviously you wouldn't have found it out in anybody else's experience) about whether there is an objective world? As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it. A tree with no one to see it. Definite yes? Definite no? Or is the question unimportant/misguided for various reasons, etc., as in, we could never know anyway.

Cheers,
Claudiu

What does your practice consist of these days?

This is triplethunk not beoman-thunk! But if you'd like to know then I have written a bit recently on this thread.

I meant to ask Triplethink, but thanks.

Oh indeed, that makes more sense. Your message was a reply to mine which is why I thought you were asking me, which I did find odd, but now all has been elucidated. Praise Jesus!

hi Claudiu

It is more pleasant when it is more fun. Generally for me if I have an actual interest online forum-ulations may well be fun also, so if it is not fun I find I need to go back and find out when I stopped having an interest and stopped having fun. Often when reading arguments (ugh, the always everywhere so very lame arguments) such an 'end of fun' will follow several sequentially failed attempts at rationality presented as if I should unquestioningly accept the given premises as if these were some sort of a sound rational argument for some particular view of some particular thing. The path from there can only lead to not fun-ness. Otherwise, I'm easy, if it's genuinely interesting I'm probably enjoying the heck out of it.

pressing on

1) Me too, very curious. Yes that is me and that is a tiger and we were both in southern Thailand at that wat where they hang out with tigers all the time shortly after noon one day in the May of 2009, and that is the story of that picture. Yes, it was interesting and fun.

2) "What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from."

Not looking for much, huh?

Ok, I'll bite, in the interests of whirled peas and everything. Well, hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you have a body and a maintain some ongoing conscious awareness of that body. Now bear in mind that this is only an approximation but my suspicion is that 'being alive' is very much like that, very similar to whatever it is that is happening there with the body and the conscious perception of and by it is happening for you. In other words it might mean any number of things. Same with the points. I'm not a bullet if that is what your asking.

Honestly, I would need much more to go on to have even an inkling of where anyone is coming from.

If you don't mind terribly, if I were to viciously redact the question to say, "What have you discovered about existing?" In the simplest terms I would frame my concerns about it with the observations that it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely. Further, if such conditions don't concern one directly, then one hasn't consciously attended to the persisting conditions in and of existing sufficiently to need to question why it might concern anyone. In that case we would have to back up from there. Otherwise we could proceed from there.

We could examine what I might submit I may have discovered on any number of tacks. It would require a lot of fun on both our parts to sustain my enthusiastic interest.

3) "...what have you been discovering lately? ...in the last year or two. What're you looking into? What're you finding? Changing any preconceived notions you previously had? How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?"

I suppose in my case many of the insights that have arisen and any knowledge and understanding I have wrested from these is in a kind of mid-life no crisis phase. I was much younger when a barrage of mind and life altering lightning strike kinds of events occurred within my perceptions and conceptions. I can well understand the enthusiastic interest in the event this occurs, especially when the iron is hot. If something similar happens now for me its more like, 'huh, this again, ok, whatever.' So, in general, over time there arise longer term more considered perspectives.

In brief, I was completely unclear regarding some critical existential concerns, then some stuff became entirely clear. Then "I" stopped being obsessively interesting entirely in anything like the same ways as before. That came as a complete relief. I've been sort of half seemingly here half obviously not here ever since. I've sort of adjusted to that or that adjusted me to it or something.

For the last year or so I've been reading a lot of western philosophy. I'm satisfied with my reading of the buddhist stuff. I know what I like, I like what I know and I will continue to read that repeatedly. I do not much care what anyone else thinks I should think about anything about it. Likewise I don't think much of the idea that whatever I might think about any of that needs to become the concern of anyone else.

I've been reading the western philosophy just because. A lot of people seem to think or feel that they are very rational and that western culture is very rational. So I'm looking into it. Discovering, nope, not even a little bit rational, no big surprise there but discovering considerable detail as to how and why there is the so much not rationality and examining how, why and if and when rational is what really is so gosh darned important anyways. There is some. Some limited and provisional rationality to be found and there is also some promising tentative reasoning given acceptably rational premises. Not very much. Some.

This last, "How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?" That is a really fun place to start from. With the existence investigations I backtrack until I identify the extents of any significant sources of insight and knowledge that is unquestionably established and continue from there. Whatever consistently reliable understanding I might bring to bear naturally predetermines how and why I might continue to investigate.

A limited metaphor for investigating existence in the ways I have is how it might be compared to focusing one camera on one image and continuing to leave it there. Once sufficiently focused the image appears quite clear. Assuming it could always be more clear one may continue to refine the focus indefinitely. Over time one may determine various qualities and specific discernible details that were not initially obvious. So this is generally how it has been going for me with the 'staring into the abyss of existence thing'. The picture that has emerged hasn't changed much over time but with continued interest it has become increasingly possible to variously comprehend that picture.

4) "is {there} an objective world?"

It certainly appears 'as if' we are constrained to acting on the premise that there is.

"As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it."

By definition such a perception is not possible. Is this not so?

People who frequent DhO are not infrequently engaged in efforts to objectify their bodies and their conscious attention are they not? I would consider any success with self objectification to be an indication that by extension objectification of not only the body, conscious attention and the sense faculties but of that which is sensed is entirely realizable if one is interested in applying an objective frame of reference to 'the sensed qualities'. This is assuming one has not already found it broadly necessary to do so regardless of the soundness of any such perceptions and conceptions. Do we not collectively find sense objects generally to appear to be those compounded sensed qualities most readily susceptible to complete objectification?

lotsa fun everone
triplethink

hi Matthew

Nothing special, somewhere back down the line I passed from practicing to fully habituated. I've been on this reading jag in western philosophy as I mentioned. Very tedious. I'm about one and a half wall length bookshelves in. I think I see daylight on the other side of it. Very much looking forward to putting that exercise in the rear view mirror as soon as possible.

Some old school meditation, same general approaches as I've been undertaking for a long time. It works for me. I focus most of my attention on strictly discernible and definable qualities (or the absence thereof) and how these function in relation to other qualities. This approach runs right through my understanding of what dependent conditions are and are not. The derived insights together form the knowledge I have cultivated thus far towards developing any direct in situ understanding of what existing is. I have done and do continue to undertake cross comparisons of my research findings with the contents of the pali sutta discourses. I have the strong impression that that guy and his friends were really good at this stuff. They must have been very interesting and had a lot of fun. Some of the anecdotes around here are interesting and fun as well.

to infinity and blond
triplethink

I had a thought.

I don't think of any of it as practice, it looks like you get one moment with anything anyhow and that is it, also gone. So by way of comparison I wrote up a bit about what my existence is generally like instead:

Hey, here is some rope for anyone anticipating a future triplethink mob lynching w/ or w/o sentimental wake or crucifixion w/ or w/o beatification down the road.

Here is how the shit went down for me and something about the consequences and implications since.

I had no idea what existing is or why it is. As I passed through my early youth I knew I was growing increasingly concerned about the apparent importance of this kind of a complete ignorance.

Then one day in my mid teens I tried out an approach described in brief as meditation which I understood might be a way of examining this, the 'existing problem'.

What happened, shortly thereafter, was very very unusual. The exercise was absurdly effective, right away and in very little time. A fools rush in high adventure. I have done a ridiculous amount of very broadly based research into however and whatever meditation might eventually accomplish for anyone and the very general picture this paints is that this would almost never happen like this.

I would not expect anyone will ever have the anything quite like the same story to tell. I was there, I was looking into what being there is and I got to the end of all of that and then that existing in its entirely was not existing anymore. I would never have believed this might be so or expected that I would discover this as such. I didn't know word one of buddha or buddhism or have anything beyond the most preliminary idea of what meditating might even potentially be about. It was many years before I looked into buddhism at all. It looked as if it might be interesting but probably difficult and maybe I would look into it one day but at the time I had more pressing concerns. Many years later I read buddhism quite extensively and have considered it now for many years also.

So anyone interested can expect that most of what I've learned so far I've learned by rediscovering a wheel largely in an entirely independent manner and with no preconceptions whatsoever and not by relying on anyone else's work. After I got as far as I could with my own wheel that was when I started comparing it to other wheels for a comparative sense of trueness. I do highly value the work of others but from this point of view and in these specific regards I can only advise one must build one's own wheel and set it rolling oneself. No one else's wheel will ever adequately serve to take one along what is ironically always the only path but no less ironically is also always by a completely different course.

Take the previously expressed concerns about rationality and reasoning. These rationalities and reasonings are provisionally useful constructions to various limited extents and for various specific purposes. In various respects necessary and required. Beyond any demonstrable imminent requirement the same demonstrably useful and beneficial constructions of rationality and reasoning rapidly incline to becoming as capable of demonstrating considerable harmfulness. There is the old metaphor about the correct way to safely hold a snake.

Anyways back to my little story. I existed, then one day I determined to examine the qualities of that existing reductively. I did that with a naive fascination until all of it very unexpectedly vanished in its entirety and I then I did not exist anymore, in any sense. Ever since that occurred I have had to consider the existing of anything in the light of how that contrasts with the complete disappearance of existing. I have to confess that I find the complete extinction of any and all existing conditions and qualities is always entirely and incomparably preferable. Preferring any conceivable existing conditions, even any one quality of any one condition, is comparatively imponderable for me so far. So I suppose this is how this existing stuff is in its persisting for me since that complete revision of my concerns. If you are interested I hope you can somewhat follow this because this is by far the briefest and simplest version of this story I have come up with so far.

On the existing side I find there is the phenomenal existing in any sense, in any form, on the not existing side there is the incomparable not existing. I consider the not existing the only aspect about which one need have no concern. The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions. The valid concerns, mine, yours, if any, such as they are, are all to do with the existing qualities and conditions such as these may be seen to arise, persist, change and in due course blessedly vanish.

So for me any valid concern is not ever in the slightest about how awesome it is when the candle inclines to fading or goes completely out. It is incomparably… supremely… yes, no problem. Anyways, the only honest concerns I have are all like, 'what is this existing, this that is persisting and changing now, this that is now observable, somehow apparently still inclined to spontaneously burst into flaming appearance from what deeply secreted and obscured glowing ember?' How might one confidently end all potential also for this kind of fire emerging in any form forever?' God help us all if this is an inexhaustible source of potentially flammable conditional compounds. And like this.

eye smiles

nathan

The reappreance of TT - It is a bit like the bat signal...when they need him most, he will come.



Hi Triplethink,

If the question was confusing, you could see it reframed, as "what Triplethink knows about what he knows", or "how does Triplethink know about what he knows is worth knowing?", or eventually, "why should we care about what Triplethink knows or knows he knows?", or "why should we care about answers to questions from Triplethink?"

I think you had a fair stab at the knowing question in your second post in the thread, along with the formulation of my original question, and as attention seeking excercises go this is all jolly good fun, so that settles my "why should we care" question, which means we can move onto a new batch. Here goes:

Why should we care about anything? Some people think we should care about the welfare of ourselves, and the welfare of others, and act in the best way we can to maximise that welfare. Should we? Why should we? How should we? You describe yourself spending a lot of getting to know yourself and meditating, so would assume that you think this worth caring about. Do you advise others to do the same? If so, why so?

I apologise if this is not a question type appropriate for TripleThunk, but it's on my mind right now.



Richard, can we unforget the forgetting of asking this question, as TT didn't seem to be offended by the asking of it? I am not sure to what extent TripleThink would be able to able to give a good answer to this question from his own experience, since this is supposedly a once in a lifetime event then he would only have a n=1, unless he was able to access his memories from previous lives. And he may have a good idea from hanging around buddhists so may have opinions, but then we have a lot of ancedotal reports ourselves floating around on places like the DhO. But I don't really get the question - do we even need access concentration? Access concentration does not involve insight, and stream entry is meant to come from insight, and so can't we get all the way there from just noting, for example, without ever experiencing access concentration at all? It seems that what you are really getting at is that do we need to have accessed and/or explored certain states of mind (to "uncling" ourselves from them, or see the 3C's?) to allow whatever happens at stream entry to happen? As we know stream entry can happen at apparently random times, such as outside of meditation.

For those wanting to know how to calm the mind, you can ask dear abbot

hi Sawfoot

"The reappreance of TT - It is a bit like the bat signal...when they need him most, he will come."

You have gathered all this to be so, in one day, and claim to be prevailingly rational? Well, I caution you against relying on this or any similar reasoning in any way particularly if your life does depend upon it for some odd reason. I do not begrudge you your impression that these are reasonable assertions. However I assure you these new assertions are thus far not at all well reasoned. Then again of no more or less merit than any of your reasoning that I have encountered thus far.

"What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?

If the question was confusing,…"

No, very poorly parsed, needlessly vague and therefore needlessly complicated to address. Try again, oh look you appear to trend toward the somewhat OCD side about stuff, cool, we can get somewhere with that maybe, someday.

"...you could see it reframed, as "what Triplethink knows about what he knows", or "how does Triplethink know about what he knows is worth knowing?", or eventually, "why should we care about what Triplethink knows or knows he knows?", or "why should we care about answers to questions from Triplethink?"

I dunno, this sounds very complex, and even less clear. I fairly sure none of it has very much to do with me anyways. Do you even know what you are asking about? I still don't follow you for the most part. This leaves me with the even more vague impression that you may want to know why, if you were me, you would care about being me, as if you perhaps could be or would be me? I wouldn't become concerned if you aren't experiencing anything of being me now. I can't foresee anything about any of that imposing itself unnecessarily. So I would relax entirely any concern about it.

"I think you had a fair stab at the knowing question in your second post in the thread, along with the formulation of my original question, and as attention seeking excercises go this is all jolly good fun, so that settles my "why should we care" question,.."

If I am following you, you have worked whatever all that was previous all out to your own satisfaction without any further input from me. Splendid. Because I still don't get it, but I can totally accept that and live with never getting it. Carry on.

In passing. As you've mentioned it. I have a thesis that all living beings require and desire attention and are variously nurtured by various forms of it. Have you observed this?

",,, which means we can move onto a new batch."

You can try. I didn't recognize the aforementioned movement but if you see what you were looking for then that is great for you.

"Here goes: Why should we care about anything?"

I don't know, do you? Again, can you be more vague, we could move through all of this even faster. I find it very boring, in the classical sense of boring.

"Some people think we should care about the welfare of ourselves, and the welfare of others, and act in the best way we can to maximise that welfare. Should we?"

That is relatively very specific and contrasts considerably with everything else you have written so far.

I am with the Buddha on this one specifically. After careful consideration I've found that which is in my best interests just so happens to correspond entirely with what is in everyone's best interests as well. So, either way yes. However note that my conception of that mutual best interest may not correspond in whole or in part to any similar conceptions of the same on your part. Perhaps it does in some respects and not in others.

"Why should we?"

We are under no compulsion to do so. Because we've found sufficient cause to do so? That work for you?

"How should we?"

My response. Any way you like. I will go at it as I do, you go at it your way. Sound reasonable?

"You describe yourself spending a lot of getting to know yourself and meditating, so would assume that you think this worth caring about."

That is as vague a statement about me as any statement you have made so far about anything, so, thanks for being consistent with that. I would not describe this that way but if that is what something transliterates into in your mind I am good with leaving it at that, for you.

"Do you advise others to do the same? If so, why so?"

Sometimes yes, generally no. Sometimes some kind of meditation may be appropriate advice for me to give in some regards to someone, more likely on occasion in a venue like this. Mostly I have found it not suitable or appropriate to bring any of this up with anyone at any time apart from far less common occasions with sufficient specific causes and conditions.

"How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry..."

I am aware of a dozen ways each of the terms in this phrase mean something different enough to make a difference to different people in this forum. If you are going to employ specific jargon you will have to explain precisely what all of that jargon means to you specifically and how you are asking me to interpret that and comment. Otherwise we can't even get the ball rolling with it.

Just the same feel free to ask me to clarify any particular terms or jargon that I might employ or anything about how I may apply it. It may well creep in, there is a lot of it about. Note also that I do not necessarily or entirely either agree or disagree with anyone else's doctrines or dogmas including any of these commonplace within the DhO. There is this and that and the next gnosis of this or that thing that does approach the status of say 'gospel' for me.

"…can we unforget the forgetting of asking this question, as TT didn't seem to be offended by the asking of it?"

You can refer to me as nathan. That is my name. TT is ok if you prefer that. Sounds very trendy like any moment I might switch to all consonants and capitals and become more sick and dope and such.

"I am not sure to what extent TripleThink would be able to able to give a good answer to this question from his own experience,"

A fair shot if we can clarify the concerns involved adequately.

"Since this is supposedly a once in a lifetime event…"

What is what why? As I said before, explain as if I do not follow any of the references on this so far at all. Presume as if I lack the capacity to assume much of anything about any of this.

"…then he would only have a n=1, unless he was able to access his memories from previous lives. And he may have a good idea from hanging around buddhists so may have opinions, but then we have a lot of ancedotal reports ourselves floating around on places like the DhO."

Again it seems you make better progress without my involvement. Maybe you could find some other scratch paper somewhere less public to deal with similar questions.

"But I don't really get the question - do we even need access concentration? Access concentration does not involve insight, and stream entry is meant to come from insight, and so can't we get all the way there from just noting, for example, without ever experiencing access concentration at all?"

You are just parroting stuff out when you aren't making stuff up, aren't you? You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Anyways, I still don't follow you at all. But as I've said, this has not become an important concern for me thus far.

"It seems that what you are really getting at is that do we need to have accessed and/or explored certain states of mind (to "uncling" ourselves from them, or see the 3C's?) to allow whatever happens at stream entry to happen? As we know stream entry can happen at apparently random times, such as outside of meditation."

It seems 'we know' quite a lot about this whichever and whatever it is which you also appear entirely unfamiliar with yourself. If any of this is an accurate reflection, and I should hope it isn't, then maybe I am getting a better sense of how you approach everything and this might eventually lead to a real concern about this of some type on my part.

There are some similarities between Eastern and Western philosophy so hopefully you'll find some of it more interesting.

Gelassenheit

Yes there are comparable areas of interest. Sometimes western philosophy is very interesting or especially clever indeed. The tediousness is in the broad strokes and long term developments. It is really sad to see, lets say, Plato make a very lame argument for a very dubious premise and then see most everyone since then up to the present continue to run with it even as they present progressively ever more excellent arguments for how very dubious this line of thought has been all along. It looks more and more to me very like an almost criminally irresponsible application of some very extensive and specialized mental skills which everyone concerned has already long agreed is more often than not completely futile or counterproductive owing to chronically systemic misapplications of effort.

I can see what, where and how they do these kinds of philosophical work. I just can't comprehend why any of them would continue to do this kind of work so ineffectively so repetitively for so long when there are so very few discernible benefits arising from doing so. Which is not to say that western philosophy is without any discernible benefits whatsoever. What I am suggesting is that the considerable work involved often appears relatively extensive whereas any benefits related to that work often appear contrastingly inconsequential. Not always, not as a rule or anything, just in general, overall. If western philosophy was to western peoples what Ford Motors was and is to America, Mr. Ford's intellectual heirs would still be considering what a prototype of a horseless carriage might one day look like and America would still be on horseback for many centuries to come. There would also be various competing schools of thought about muleless carriages and camelless carriages and penquinless carriages and so on.

Thanks for the pdf. I'll look it over.

A lot of what you say is true about how useless some philosophy can be. All you have to do is read some long tome of a philosophy book and then just think "what I'm I going to eat for lunch?" and start finding it hard to apply to your life in a way that advances it.

Heidegger is difficult and I find just reading books about his book easier to do but he does at least challenge that Descartes "I think therefore I am" so that we don't have to be only stuck in "thing-ness" for a self. Meditation allowed for me to look at experience as it is. Gelassenheit seems to point to a mindfulness where we wait for things to unfold as we talk and act but there's no particular final goal or final purpose. You still act but you are not getting addicted to conceptuality but letting concepts advance while still using them. Some of his warning about technology is very prescient in our age of using screens everywhere.

Heidegger on Gelassenheit



There is a usefulness to thing-ness but it can't replace experience and observation.

I'm still chewing on a lot of this stuff because it's so dense. I still haven't gotten into Wittgenstein yet which will also be difficult to read. German Existentialism hurts the brain.

Dear nathan,

Though I wouldn't presume to know the the mind of the TripleThinK (AKA the one who is no one AKA TT), this seems more like what you want to be thunked about, so it might be more productive to focus our attention here, though perhaps less entertaining for everyone concerned and less of a waste of time.

Yes, I am parroting stuff about stream entry. I entirely agree I don't know what I am talking about. I believe I have experienced the kind of state commonly talked about as access concentration, given its description in various places, but do not believe I have the experience(s) commonly called stream entry. And as such, am entirely unfamiliar with it as you very correctly point out. So it might be reasonable to say there is no point me discussing or thinking about it at all. I can parrot various things I have read, such as reports of when it has occurred to others, but since I don't know really what it is, or how it is achieved, I can't say that much of use about it. And since I don't know anything about it first hand, it is difficult to define it, other than by pointing to what is commonly talked about on this forum and elsewhere. And since everyone seems to experience it (or not experience it) in such seemingly different and unique circumstances (from what I read), it is difficult for to define any consistent characteristics, in its character and how it came to happen, and its consequences. And yet, in these circles, there is consensus view that achieving it, whatever it is, is a desirable goal, and people are full of various advice on steps to maximise the likelihood of it occurring, though no-one seems to have of much of an idea of what "it" is or how to achieve it. So I don't know what kind of definition I can provide to get balls rolling. It is a phrase that points to something. But I can't define it precisely. Often words are phrases are like that.

In the spirit of rolling balls, is there an experience you have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry? Can you then give your own personal definition to it, a definition that might be helpful for people like me to understand it better, and help us get to the bottom of Richard's question?

The sawfoot

"I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views."

Thank Christ for that...if you had any opinions I'd still be reading your first post.


Brian

There is a long standing complaint here at DhO that goes back to at least Daniel's book about 'a mushroom culture' within the buddhist subculture. I think it was and is an important critique and I would have like to have seen more attention given to resisting cultivating yet another version of that here. Perhaps all we have demonstrated is that it will follow you everywhere just like the stink from his cigarettes followed Ajahn Chah everywhere he went. It probably proves to be far more work that it is worth to weed it out as meticulously as would likely be necessary and it would all be highly unpleasant work.

By way of comparison I would suggest that the mushroom culture supported by western philosophy is more or less equivalent to western culture overall.

If we consider many of the dubious premises that run through much of the contemporary western spirituality and self help industry and how much capital that industry turns over, that sector, together with the high state church of psychology will probably the represent the larger part of the mainstream religion of the future. Many of these bizarre hybrid ideas begin as western distortions and misinterpretations of eastern notions.

What is very interesting is reading through western work translating and commenting on buddhism over the last three hundred years along side of western philosophy over the same period. The picture that emerges is enlightening (in the sense that traces back to the renaissance period). You can observe how from the very beginning the completely alien aspects of eastern thought have consistently eluded western thinkers and interpreters. So if you are familiar with various schools and premises in western philosophy you can then note how eastern thought, be it buddhist or otherwise always passes through a filter of western philosophical and cultural biases as the western culture continues its attempts to appropriate anything 'useful' or 'marketable' from the alien culture.

If you understand something of the greek philosophers you can trace this interaction between east and west all the way back almost to the buddha's lifetime and before. There are some significant mental barriers for the psychological makeup in the west in relation to many of the key eastern philosophical notions. The western conceptions of state and of self are far more advanced in many ways and this has its advantages and disadvantages. With the western attempts to interpret eastern thought it has been mostly disadvantageous. What can be seen is quite similar to the way that without key notions which we can trace back to Plato or Aristotle much of the new testament would have made no sense to western christians over the last 18 centuries.

Similarly the European or western mindset can be seen to have been attempting to find something to relate to in the eastern mindset at various points throughout the last 2000 years as well. The results of these efforts are mostly strange hybrids of various kinds. Something in the eastern mindset is kind of like something in the western mindset so we use this or that western notion to stand in for wherever that seemingly very similar eastern notion appears. However they are not the same notions at all. So as western philosophy continues to reformulate and exchange notions in a very dynamic and rapid manner it has to continue to replace these notions that are standing in for their seeming eastern correlates.

The result has been a long series of western philosophical hybrid misinterpretations. One could research and label them all for a PhD thesis or something similar. It's history would look something like; Greek Buddhism, Reformed Orthodox Greek Buddhism, Decartian Buddhism (still very popular), Romantic Buddhism (still very big today), Kantian Buddhism, Hegelian Buddhism, Utilitarian Buddhism (also very big), Wittgensteinian Buddhism, Freudian Buddhism, Jungian Buddhism, Perrenialist Buddhism, etc., etc., etc..

It leads to the obvious question, has there ever been any unfiltered and unmodified appropriations by the west of alien cultural property and the answer proves to be very likely no.

This 'movement' Pragmatic Buddhism for instance, is fascinating when viewed through the lens of Marxist theory. If you add Lacanianism or Althussarianism it begins to appear even more monstrous and menacing. Really great stuff if you like those little unexpected kinds of shocks like you get in movies of the horror genre.

I kind of like Wittgenstein, a real breath of fresh air after reading someone like Neitzsche.

Read it more carefully. I don't hold to any opinions or views. I do collect them. So I very likely have many more opinions and views running around in here than most people ever will. I just don't have to feed or water them or be concerned when they are butchered in the street or sold into slavery by other more hostile and aggressive opinions and views.

Dear Old Saw,

No, I do not think "there an experience {I -triplethink} have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry…" If the doctrines detailed in the Pali Canon are to be taken at face value, any such thing would perhaps more likely have occurred previous to my lifetime. So, no, I have nothing novel to add on the stream entry stuff except that as with much of western buddhism the moral and ethical dimensions have been reduced to a weak afterthought as opposed to being a vital and central concern as this continues to be in many places in the east.

Yes much of this is highly resistant to "defin{ing} any consistent characteristics" in the ways that the western modalities of ideation inclines to doing that. I don't expect it to ever succeed; square pegs, round holes, etc..

Whatever the consensus view is, assuming this is not yet another mythic animal, count me out, in principle at the very least.

When I read this thread, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressured_speech

I think the West is also trying to compete with Buddhism because there are some correlates like Stoicism and Pre-Socratic philosophers which lead into modern psychology.

Rational Emotive Behaviour

What I like about the above system is that it countered some of my beliefs in a good way. I remember being late for a doctor's appointment and I was in my car speeding like crazy. I looked at my belief (which any actions or emotions have as a basis) and noticed that the belief must be that all the cars should get out of my way and I should be allowed go as fast as I wanted. Just bringing that to consciousness got me to laugh at myself and slow down.

What I do like about Existentialism is that they seem to embrace the self-reactivity as a call to responsibility. The worry then can be used for good instead of just worrying. Also noting the worry and why it's there has a therapeutic quality to it like Mahasi noting. This could also be seen in Logotherapy by Frankl, where a person taking care of their sick relative could find meaning in that, thereby reducing the mental stress just by recognizing that and bringing it's purpose to their attention. A belief changes and so does the emotion.

I'm considering taking it in a more of a "Being There" direction. I'm just back from a long 'almost silent retreat' which began during our "Fight Club" phase. How is the "Forest Gump" thing working out?

Dear N-dog,

That is a shame. Upstairs you indicated that you might "a fair shot if we can clarify the concerns involved adequately" at answering the question from Richard, so I naively thought you might have some something interesting or insightful to say on the matter. I must appear rather foolish now for making a concerted effort to coax some semblance of a useful reply from you.

Have you ever considered playing minecraft? It might lead to a better use of everyone's time.



p.s. the bit about the bat-signal was poking fun at the grandiosity of someone who can write stuff like this with a straight face.

bye

I'm still willing to reply to Richard if he can clarify his question for me. We have already established that you have no idea what you are talking about in these regards and so I have addressed this question as such from you as irrelevant.

No, I have not and will not consider playing minecraft. Is that where you were during your school hours? This would explain much. Son, you do not need any help in appearing foolish.

Btw, my face is always visibly asymmetrical.

have a nice week everyone,
don't starve or over feed the trolls, they are the wandering mendicants of our times.

triplethink

You may well be interested in having a look at Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983), a Spanish philosopher, whose works are deeply rooted in western philosophy (plus Spanish mystics tradition and comparisons with Indian's traditions), yet is as theravadish as you can get. His main development was the "Sentient Intelligence" (nowadays in English).

************************************

A key element in Zubiri’s Thought: The overwhelming force of our direct perception of reality. For Zubiri, this is the salient characteristic of human intelligence and must be the starting point for any firmly grounded theory of the intelligence and any epistemology.

Phenomenology and Reality: Zubiri takes two critical ideas from phenomenology (Husserl, Ortega y Gasset, and Heidegger). First is a certain way or "idea" of philosophy. In particular, he accepts that phenomenology has opened a new path and deepened our understanding of things by recognizing that it is necessary to position philosophy at a new and more radical level than that of classical realism or of modern idealism (primarily Hegel).

Secondly, he accepts that philosophy must start with its own territory, that of "mere immediate description of the act of thinking". But for him, the radical philosophical problem is not that proclaimed by the phenomenologists: not Husserl’s "phenomenological consciousness", not Heidegger’s "comprehension of being", not Ortega’s "life", but rather the "apprehension of reality". He believes that philosophy must start from the fundamental fact of experience, that we are installed in reality, however modestly, and that our most basic experiences, what we perceive of the world (colors, sounds, people, etc.) are real. Without this basis—and despite that fact that such experience can at times be misleading—there would be no other knowledge either, including science. But because the world discovered to us by science is quite different from our ordinary experience (electromagnetic waves and photons instead of colors, quarks and other strange particles instead of solid matter, and so forth), a critical problem arises which thrusts Zubiri towards a radical rethinking of the notion of reality.

Zubiri’s Major Insights and Innovations:

- Recognizes the inseparability of the sensible and intellective aspects of human knowledge, the seat of which he terms sentient intelligence. The distinction between sensing and intellective knowing is not something immediately given in human apprehension, but belongs to the rational order.

- Creates a new definition of human intellection: "... mere actualization of the real in the sentient intelligence".

- Distinguishes the formality of reality (i.e., the aspect of reality delivered to us in an impression) from the content of reality of a thing.

- Establishes three stages or levels of human knowledge: reality, logos, and reason or ratio. Truth is ultimately grounded in the first, not the second and third, as has traditionally been assumed (this, in effect, is Zubiri’s "Copernican Revolution").

- Expands our conception of reality to encompass both reity (reality delivered in sensible apprehension, i.e., formality actualized in apprehension) and reality (reality "beyond" apprehension; traditionally the only meaning of the term). The latter is ultimately founded upon the former.

- Recognizes that while the senses (of which he identifies 11 rather than the usual 5) differ in content, it is with respect to their formality, i.e., the way in which they deliver reality to us, that the difference is most important. This implies that there are as many forms of actualization of reality as there are senses; but because the sentient intellection is indivisible, they correspond to different modes of intellective presentation of reality.

- Truth, in the most fundamental or primordial sense, is imposed upon us, through the force of reality, rather than being something we conquer (that applies rather to the derivative sense of truth in rational knowledge).

- A new definition of intelligence: not capability to process information, but actualizing things as "de suyo" (in its own right).

- Recognition of human intelligence as something which is not flawed, but rather limited, and therefore subject to error while yet quite capable of apprehending reality and of truth.

- Distinguishes what he terms the talitative and transcendental orders within reality, the former having to do with the content of things (primarily the focus of science), and the latter their formality of reality (primarily the focus of metaphysics).

- Causality vs Functionality (sort of dependent origination).

Full introduction text here.

Here an easy introduction to Zubiri's philosophy.

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for doing this.

You say you can offer advice on ways to investigate, and I get the impression you'd prefer, or consider more productive, questions of that nature... but I'm more interested in the following, and believe an answer to this is potentially more beneficial - at least for me:

How seriously do you think someone with no major obligations (such as supporting a family) should strive towards the Arahatship of the ten-fetters model as defined in the Pali canon?

By "seriously" I mean is it something worth dedicating one's life to? Ordaining as a monk for? Spending upwards of a year on retreat for? I don't request that you answer each of these questions, but just want to elaborate on what I mean by that word.

By "think" I mean for you to assume you are forced to take a position on whether or not each of the relevant teachings (such as karma and rebirth) are true, based on your meditative experience alone, and whichever position is more likely. By "true" I mean being in literal accordance with how it is defined in the Pali canon.

By "strive towards" I mean endeavor to attain. By "attain" I mean be for the rest of their lives accurately characterized by.

Whether or not there is anything else that you are unsure of or object to, please just try to reply in whatever way you believe to be maximally beneficial for those reading the post over the next, say, 3 months, and given the following conditions:
- that you assume your beneficence is limited to just the extent of your reply (as in, not ultimately beneficial - after several dozen posts).
- that you elaborate on your answer, including descriptions of relevant experiences in your practice (such as visions of past lives), for a reasonable period of time (say, 15 minutes).
Please choose whatever definition of beneficial you think is most appropriate given the aforementioned conditions.

This may not be fun for you, but I'd really appreciate it, and I imagine it could be fascinating and inspiring to read.

Edit: you can assume each month is a rough Gregorian calender average of 30 days.

Triplethink, I used to enjoy your early posts but now you've overstimulated your mind with all this meditating and philosophy and gone a bit strange.

It seems likely that you understand philosophical concepts that most others would grapple with. And it seems likely that you have experienced some far out things with your meditation. But all you've done in here is show off your storehouse of knowledge in the most conspicuous way possible, full of flamboyance and unnecessary wordiness. It just indicates a need for approval and attention. Those posing questions tried to match your flamboyant wordiness just so that you might give them the time of day, but all you did was 'up the stakes' to see if they could match you. No questions got answered.

What this thread indicates is that a lot of people posting here seem to be severely lacking a sense of humor!

Ha, well not everyone I guess!

You do it too. It's all about: "look at me and my flamboyant wordiness and philosophical highness". Just showing off. Not interesting or helpful.

The humour is a way of hiding the fact that he is just trying to get 'one up' on you. And he did. He beat you! It's a game to see who is the superior philosopher and witty wordsmith. Horn fell for it too.

He beat me? Darn, I didn't even notice. Could you point out where he did that so I can feel properly defeated?

Wow! Thanks! I didn't know this guy at all and just reading the Wikipedia summary I can see why, with Franco interfering. Looks like another guy like Sartre who took the earlier phenomenologists and tried to add to them and correct them.

Thi-

...

What?



I would assume... people that are trying to suss out the existence of faeries?

The rest of your paragraph is difficult for me to understand, it seems that you are cagey about making positive (in the "asserting the truth of something" sense) claims. As a consequence, though it is not my place to say, and I apologize, your words consistently take detours, often times within the same sentence.

It's difficult for anyone to understand what you are saying, if you are saying anything.



Totally, that is a rational response.



See this is basically word spaghetti, your sentences sound like fragments, I have no idea where the... what are you saying?



So what?

This is what you are saying:

1) No opinions or arguments are valid.
2) Direct experience.

You did not make a positive or assertion or statement? It's like copping out. You can't really say something is invalid and then say "come and see". One of the opinions has to be valid, unless we are talking about subjective opinions.

What are you asserting?



Ok. Again, don't really understand what you are saying.

Basically you are saying:

1) Before contemplating faeries.
2) "What more foundational determinations giving rise to what sort of understanding might actually be necessary before I might honestly understand this or that."

Again, extremely vague.



What?



Ahhh, I got it. Basically you're saying that direct experience is king and that is not really possible to tell what's real or not.

Is that what you're saying? Say I was to ask you what's real or not real?

Could you tell me? Or are you cagey about asserting the existence of your mind, or your body, in other words are you lost in a thicket of views?

Let me try this again:

Do you or do you not exist?

Don't avoid the question. Just answer it.

If you can't answer that, then it seems that you are lost in some sort of faerie-tale world.

(pun intended)

Hey, good to see you around. I haven't been too active here in the past couple of years. What a nice coincidence that our appearances might overlap now.

How are you?

What's the rainbows & whirled peas reference? I haven't caught up with all the threads yet, so maybe that will clarify itself.

Cheers,
Florian

I think whirled peas is that thing where everyone gets along all the time? Like there's no more fighting and what-not. Sort of a utopian ideal? I don't know about rainbows in general but I can't imagine having some whirled peas without a few rainbows to go along with it.

Nice! I really like fun as well. Would you agree with the notion that if it's not fun then what's the point really? Given some qualifications, of course. For example when I sometimes say something like that to someone they will say, if all they wanted to do was have fun, they would just do drugs all the time, or something. To which my answer is usually, but no, that doesn't sound like very much fun at all if you think about it a bit.

Agreed also about the end of fun. I think I usually err on the side of going too far after the fun has ended before I stop and think about why the fun has ended.


Hehe. Just getting right to the nub of it!


I do indeed have a body though I would say that it does the hard work of maintaining the ongoing conscious awareness so I don't have to. I like the way you formulated the question in terms of "What have you discovered about existing?" so let's go with that. Yes, existence is indeed what I am interested in.


Alright, I'm game. If it stops being fun then we can just - stop talking about it!

Existence does concern me greatly. This bit is interesting: "it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely". Because at first glance, it would indeed seem straightforward to do so. Namely, apply knife to throat or bullet to temple or whatever. However I get a fuller picture by combining it with this other bit you said: "I existed, then one day I determined to examine the qualities of that existing reductively. I did that with a naive fascination until all of it very unexpectedly vanished in its entirety and I then I did not exist anymore, in any sense. Ever since that occurred I have had to consider the existing of anything in the light of how that contrasts with the complete disappearance of existing. I have to confess that I find the complete extinction of any and all existing conditions and qualities is always entirely and incomparably preferable. Preferring any conceivable existing conditions, even any one quality of any one condition, is comparatively imponderable for me so far."

So by existence you mean... well yes, let's start from there - what do you mean by existence, exactly? Because you see, I find myself also currently existing, and have also tasted non-existence, and I do wish to experience that non-existence on a permanent basis.. yet the non-existence I crave still involves conscious experience, you see? And it seems yours does too, because you said: "The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions." So the non-existence you speak of does exist in some way. I think it's time we start using some different terms, or perhaps coining new ones!

Actually, I've tasted two different kinds of non-existence, yet both of which involved some sort of experience, and I'm really particularly after one of them at the moment and not the other one, and to me it sounds like you're talking about the "other one". The one I'm after involved a continuation of sense experiencing, and the one I am not after currently though which was quite striking at the time involved a discontinuation of sense experiencing.


I found perhaps something similar with regards to audio. A while ago I purchased some hi-quality in-ear headphones, and had great joy in listening to all the music I had listened to before with them. I heard a lot of things that I simply never noticed before. Then the earphones started getting wonky so I ordered a new pair. And again, I thought these were higher quality, because I again heard stuff I never had before, and I grew to like them way more than the old ones. Now I happened to lose these in the subway, so I went to purchase a replacement. I saw that the more hi-end version of the recent ones was about $400 or something and I didn't know whether to spend dat kinda cash. And then I looked at the model number on my old phones and - they were those!

So it's not that the newer phones were higher-quality. They were the lower-end model. But they still brought out stuff *differently* than the higher-quality ones, and that gave my ears new focus. So I appreciated some songs on a level I hadn't before. Now that I've gone back again I'm hearing new things. Thus it's not so much that there is a one perfect focus, but rather, different clear-enough focuses bring out different things differently. And it wouldn't be possible to have all those things at once because then the balance would change again and it'd be something else instead.


Certainly it is impossible to perceive a world outside of anyone's perception of it. But is it impossible to *know* that there is a world outside of anyone's perception of it? I say no - it is possible to know this. But you say you do not - you say it "appears as if we are constrained to acting on the premise that there is", which is quite different. Perhaps I can ask: what is it which prevents certitude of whether or not the world objectively exists? The question of whether the world objectively exists seems a binary one - with a yes or a no answer. Yet most of the time I find I cannot answer it from direct experience - I am not sure. However, sometimes, when I'm not existing, I can answer it from direct experience - yes it does. Other times from direct experience I was able to answer that no, it doesn't. Nowadays I think of the experience wherein I experience that it does objectively exist as factual and the experience wherein I experience that it doesn't objectively exist as non-factual, for a variety of reasons. Do you remain in the "it seems as if but can't really be sure" position?


Hmm, perhaps... what do you mean by "objectification"? And particularly do you draw any distinction between "self objectification" and sense-object objectification?

I refrained from commenting on the western philosophy stuff as I have very little experience with all that, but thanks for sharing. I read a little bit of Wittgenstein but I found myself just agreeing with what he said that was similar to what I already thought true and disagreeing with what he said that was different, so that wasn't too productive. I did find this conclusion in Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus really funny (and fun), though:


Fun & whirled peas!
- Claudiu

P.S.
But why... why is the tiger all on its back and you appear to be rubbing its belly? I was under the impressions tigers would tend to eat those who are not the people that raised them. I guess I was mistaken? Admittedly it is not a very well-informed impression.

It is indeed humorous, especially how everyone probably feels that they have won in their attempts at oneupmanship. So when in nathan's head he thinks he has demonstrated his superiority over me, I can smugly rest feeling he has sufficiently embarrassed himself to see my job done without hardly trying.

But what first seemed like fun becomes tiredly quickly.

So I am going to play my "better man" card, which is about 76% sincere.

Nathan,

You have a very unique and individual perspective, and great knowledge and experience in matters of Dharma, which has value to this community. I agree with you on the importance of morality and the ethical dimension in practice. In fact, for many or most spiritual traditions, this is the practice. Yet it is so easy to forget this, as I have done here, and with this in mind I apologise for teasing you.

In gasho,

Old Saw

Hey Nathan,

First of all, thank you for not taking part in that hurricane of bullshit some people here call "rationalism", and which has very little, if anything at all, to do with reason, knowledge, or science. Some people are horrified that I have very good friends who think God created humans 8000 years ago, and that it wasn't all evolution from monkeys or whatever. Big deal. As if I should care more about who was doing what to whom around 8000 years ago than about my friends.

Anyway. In what you say about existence and conditions existing and relating to each other or not existing etc, all of that's sweet and nice. But what about people? What about the whole so-called "morality" side of the dharma, the one that's concerned not with being right and having a better theory than your neighbour, but about compassion, inter-subjectivity, alleviating suffering or not causing more of it?

From what you've written so far, it's like there's you, alone, in a room full of books, and you do your nice little investigation. And perhaps that's correct, in which case you and I are very different. I live with and for other people, who live with and for me, and we fuck each other up even when we try not to. If invesitgating the true nature of phenomena can help us not fuck each other up so much, then I'm game for that. If it doesn't do much in that direction, then I don't think I really care, in the same way that I do not really care about black holes, gravitons, the Big Bang and who was fucking whom 8000 years ago. So, in your experience and your mulling over things, does meditation help, or not really? Do some forms of meditation help more than others? Is it as simple as metta/longen/etc help with relation with people, noting/contemplation/etc helps with relation with walls and stones?

V

I have resolved that I will make a practice of reading and responding to posts in sequence, picking up where I left off, routinely, on Saturdays. I will not follow the thread during the week as I have other work to attend to as well. Others are free to post whenever and whatever they wish. I will leave the cutting out of any cancers to the skilled surgeons who administer this forum.

Here is a response out of sequence for you Victor, a kind of thank you for asking good questions.


Some very good questions Victor.

In regards to how others might view us here is something interesting that the Buddha had to say about his experience:

"I recall having taught the Dhamma to an assembly of many hundreds, and yet each one of them assumes of me, 'Gotama the contemplative is teaching the Dhamma attacking just me,' but it shouldn't be seen in that way. The Tathagata rightly teaches them the Dhamma simply for the purpose of giving knowledge. At the end of that very talk I steady the mind inwardly, settle it, concentrate it, and unify it in the same theme of concentration as before, in which I almost constantly dwell."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

In regards to morality and ethics I do not think it is a side of the dhamma-vinaya but always a consideration and present everywhere throughout the doctrine and discipline. You can see in the above phrases how the voidness of self concerns, when well established, does not depart and that the signless unification of mind is always near and always preferred. What should it matter what dependent conditions cause one to suffer when one will soon be entirely and lastingly free of all of this. Lovingkindness and compassion are for those who have no such confidence and peace. Joyful appreciation is for all beings and peace is for those who keep it near and for those who are near to such as these.

It is true that for much of the last two decades I have lived in the forest and that I have spent much of that time in meditation. I can tell you that sitting alone in the woods, abiding in jhana, is not at all like staring at stones. Whenever I would go to a quiet place and unify my mind, when I would emerge from my meditations I would find that I was surrounded by living beings. Birds of all kinds from the smallest to the greatest. Every sort of animal that can be found in the northern temperate coastal rainforest; spiders and ants, snakes, lizards, mice, marmots, raccoons, foxes, wolves, elk, deer, bear and cougars. More often than not also those kinds of beings who senseless human beings no longer can see.

I am comfortable sleeping with lions and I am no less composed and calm with people, even when they seek my bodily harm. I do not say this to boast, only to explain. If you do not believe me, come see me and we will walk by day and sleep outside for a night or ten in that same garden under the stars. It does a body good.

There is a difference between lions and wolves and people. Even an old wolf, hungry and maddened by harsh living grows calm in my company. The largest of bears and the noblest of cranes will bow to me. The birds live together in peace nearby, hawks, owls and eagles sit calmly among flocks of doves, jays and sparrows.

People are different, many of them have lost their senses entirely and cannot so readily discern those who mean them ill from those who mean them well. People would come to see me in the forest as well. If they were drunk or harsh I would ask them to depart and return when they were sober, otherwise we would sit and talk. Before long they would usually say something like, "it is so peaceful here at your home in the forest, you are so very fortunate to be living here in just this way." I would reply saying, "Yes, this is a peaceful and beautiful place and I am very fortunate indeed to be living here in just this way."

One night a young man, traumatized and hardened by his life experience stayed late and we talked while we listened to his loud, discordant and angry music. He departed in the middle of the night and a moment later he returned and was pounding on my door, his face was red and flushed. "There is a huge cougar on your path and I don't have my rifle!" He shouted. "Rest a moment and compose yourself," I said, "you can relax, he is a friend and I do not think he will harm you." I gave him a lamp, went with him down the path to the road and he departed for his home.

This is something of the nature of my life in the forest.

About a year ago I moved back to the city to live again with my parents and care for them in their old age. I owe them a great debt that can never be fully repaid. Not only did they do everything for my sister and I that could be expected from responsible parents but much more that can not be expected as well. My parents are devout and sincere Christians.

My father has twelve years of post graduate studies and a double doctorate in theology. He wrote five thesis in his day. He spent his lifetime in service as a cleric and was tireless in his ministry to everyone and anyone who called upon him at any hour, day or night. He revived three different churches in three different cities from conditions of near oblivion to the conditions of large and thriving congregations. When he retired from formal service to his last congregation they replaced him with four new pastors.

My mother was an RN all her working life. Early in her career she cared for newborns and late in her career she cared for the elderly. Both of my parents are constant in mindfulness, filled with loving kindness, generous, learned, skilled, accomplished and tireless. My sister's nature is much the same as are my cousins and aunts and uncles and so forth.

My parents parents were immigrant farmers to a new and colder northern land. Farmers as were their parents for three centuries before, all the way back to the days when the noble title and lands of our family were seized by a state with no nobility. But even though their lands and titles and many of their lives were taken they could not take away our family's continuing inheritance of nobility. I will explain why.

My mother is out right now, looking to the needs of others. My father is home resting having recently defeated his third serious cancer. I am seeing to the work they can no longer so easily do, be it here in their home or elsewhere. My parents are dearly loved by all those who know them well. There have more often than not been many people from all over the world spending time here with them in their home. We have sat together for many meals around a table set for ten or twenty if not more and we will do so again. I grew up observing people who lived and worked together in conditions of mutual compassion and respect and they would look to my parents for wisdom and guidance. I saw many people with many backgrounds be these difficult or easy who benefited greatly from their association with my mother and my father and this is still so today. I cannot recall anyone who ever came to any harm in their company.

Not only by example and instruction but also by practice and correction my parents schooled me in meritorious thoughts, meritorious acts and meritorious speech. I was instructed in these ways, trained in these ways, steeped in these ways. From my earliest days I was in the company of two people who not only deeply loved and respected one another but who know what it means to live a lifetime within the brahmaviharas. This is the 54th year of their marriage.

So thorough was my education in divine abiding that when I learned of meditation and sat down for the first time I easily stilled my mind and unified it upon the breath. I was most fortunate when I quickly entered the first jhana. Seeking a glimpse of my soul I looked deeper into my mind for surely if my body was on this side of my mind then my soul would be on the other side. Searching for the other side I easily moved from the first jhana progressively to the fourth and then I entered again in sequence each of the formless realms. At last only percipience without object remained and it was clear that my soul was near at hand, all I needed to do was let go the percipient quality and… …extinction.

Emerging, I entered the signless unification of mind and it was made plain to the mind, there was no soul, there was only extinction and this new sign in my mind denoted the perfection of that void. I would never have believed it, no matter what reasoning you gave, no matter what testimony you offered, but it was so and my body had touched the void itself as easily as if it were my own heart. This, my new heart was a heart filled with freedom and I ran with it.

So for these and many more reasons I owe these noble parents of mine far more than I could ever hope to give in the short time we have left together. I have no doubt that they will soon have new bodies and new minds in a far better world better suited to the kinds of beings they have become through lives of lovingkindness, peacefulness and service. I cannot promise them I will be there with them one day but I am sure it is a great merit, a priceless merit, what they have done for me. I am confident that they will be happy and healthy and a blessing to all other beings in whatever world they find themselves in next and in whatever new minds and new bodies they find these divine natures they have so thoroughly cultivated and developed to such a high degree might take shape.

I can imagine a day in the future when my parents are established in a new world as divine as their hearts are now. The deva's recollect many past lives, unlike human beings who loose many faculties in birth. I picture them happy and well in their new home. They will be watching and waiting to see what becomes of us, their children. They will watch and then one day my sister will join them and they will be pleased. They will ask her, what has become of your brother, we could not see him when he left that world. She will say, she does not know but surely I must have gone to a sorrowful destination. They will then seek out old and wise deva's and brahmas and inquire again in hopes of discovering my fate.

I can imagine them one day coming upon a deva who was a disciple of the buddha and they will inquire again to see if they can learn of my fate. That deva will look with divine and awakened vision and recognize the truth. He will tell them of the Buddha and his teachings and explain that wherever I have gone, it is a question to be answered by a Buddha or a Great Disciple. They will seek such a being out, wise, skilled, accomplished and ancient. That one will give them their answer, whatever that might be and then they will learn of the Buddha's Dhamma, in a time and a place appropriate to them. Seeing clearly its perfection they will study it and learn it and practice it and perfect it and in due course they will be freed forever from bondage and suffering and something more of my debt will be repaid.

This is some of what I know from people and perhaps you are right in thinking that you and I are very different kinds of people.

-nathan

I would like to retract my comments in my previous post. They were rude, disrespectful and uncalled for. I habitually act like a dick towards my superiors, or people I could learn from. I won't do it again.

I really appreciate this post, it inspires me to see someone who really has found his heart's rest and has consummated the Buddha's teachings, though it is not my place to say.

Hello,
Do you believe you are done?
Was it nirodha experience?
The way i understand changing part of awareness will go closer to chageless part of awareness, when its 100% then its Nirodha(total cessation) and when its almost lets say 95% then can see that i am holding that changless aspect and at the same time can think, breath but not get affected by it.
This state itself is nothing but the knowledge seed there, what needs to be resolved in ordinary state in order to go beyond mind or finish the not yet completed journey. Have you done it?

Wanted to say that there might be also Nirodha 2.0 after Nirodha 1.0 where there is no coming back anymore i believe through top of the head, but not sure about this haven't tried it, but only glimpsed(sort of half way through), also the darkness(space) is different.

cheers!

This is my favorite DhO post. Thank you so much, Nathan.

I am briefly here to add a minor correction. I have just now had an opportunity to have my father fact check this account for his part in it and regarding the facts of our family history. After all, he researched and wrote the book on that based on first person accounts and documents gathered on two continents. He thanked me for being so complimentary. He had no objections but requested that I make one small correction and clarification and I said that I would do so, post haste. He has two masters degrees and not two PhDs. His PhD is similar to a PhD with a double major with the slight difference that there is both a distinctly theoretical and a practical component. As I saw it, it was easily the workload of two PhDs but he insists it should be viewed strictly as one degree, that of Doctor of Theology.

Thank you for the directness, parsimony and goodwill of your recent comments. I suppose my point was simply that I do not feel it requires any supernormal wisdom or powers to discern the differences between those who are making themselves fit for a future existence in one of the heavens from those who are making themselves fit for a future existence in one of the hells. My hope is merely that we might each rightly sense the directions in which the paths we each choose will take us.

I look forward to resuming my part in our conversations on Saturday. May everyone have a fun and interesting week.

upekkha
nathan

Tripethink, you started with this: "If this is you, then kindly go fuck yourself". It was stated amongst a barrage of superior-sounding statements, crazy philosophy and pressured speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_of_speech)

Then came this: "Not only by example and instruction but also by practice and correction my parents schooled me in meritorious thoughts, meritorious acts and meritorious speech. I was instructed in these ways, trained in these ways, steeped in these ways".

Your whole tone changed 180 degrees. Now instead of a superior philosopher, we are presented with the picture of a wonderfully holy and temperate man who tames wild animals with his magnificent presence, sitting alone in the Thai forest. I seriously think you have a problem with mania or schizophrenia.

Way to kill his buzz, triple C!

One of things that struck me as amazing about this thread was despite all this, some posters were still looking at Nathan for advice and wisdom, in one case, whether to become a monk or not. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others, and even when you point it out, it doesn't really matter, as people will form their own opinions and believe what they want to believe. And so what do we, Nathan, and the DhO gain from playing the superiority game? It seems that we mainly just end up with black pots and kettles, and a mean spirited forum.

Nathan, you seem to be saying here that meditation for you consists of abiding in jhana. I would like to point out that the jhanas are purely concentration, and do not by themselves lead to insight. While they are pleasant, the jhanas suppress mental activity rather than overcoming it. It is a fundamental teaching that concentration is only one part of the path, and it must be supplemented by insight meditation (and morality in daily life). Though I am not aware of the full extent of your practice, should you only be practicing concentration, your practice would be deficient.

In my experience, experiences of 'mind unification' are concentration based and do not lead to progress. Concentration meditation focuses on creating and maintaining stable, 'unified', or concentrated mind states. Insight meditation on the other hand focuses on working through the layers of mental confusion, on seeing the illusory nature of seemingly stable mind states. Thus, though concentration and insight may work together on the path, one must practice both, and especially insight meditation, in order to progress



By this quote you seem to be implying that you are so highly advanced that only a 'Buddha or Great Disciple' could recognize the place you will go upon death. From the beginning of this thread you have presented yourself as one who is wise enough that others would desire to ask you questions. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here because it is exceedingly difficult to tell a persons level of attainment, but for credibility's sake, could you state exactly how advanced you are? What is your level of attainment? Have you glimpsed emptiness? Are you emptiness?...

Hi SF,

I like and relate to where you took this thread and your own mind (forerunner of all action):


In myself, I realize that I needed even more structure than the criteria for right speech (that it be true, timely (with some exception), agreeable, beneficial and said with a mind of good will). So in looking I found the criteria for what makes a dharma teacher and I apply this to how I teach myself anything and how I aim to engage any topic and others (from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.159.than.html, Udayi):


So it's a challenge, but in fact the above enables me to engage people and issues more often now, with calm, with energy (not always! This is a relatively new effort). I can clearly see which so-called poison I have let grow up in my own mind when one of the above criteria is not guiding my mind, the forerunner to my actions: 1)possession, 2)aversion/ill-will, 3) ignorance... or a combo.

Anywho, thanks. (And I see several people applying such ways of engaging the DhO, too. Sometimes I just send a PM to say thanks.)

Yes. I've also noticed this almost bipolar behaviour.
Also a lot of ego wrestling and covert insults. Not something one would expect from a deeply enlightened person.
And its like that in other threads also whenever some of the forums gurus are chalenged.

/me shrugs

For some reason it's fairly common here that some crazy manic person will start a thread claiming high attainments and speaking all sorts of nonsense that's very difficult to follow. If you look around you'll find a few others like this. I don't think they're "forum gurus": people here are generally pretty skeptical.

I don't think anyone who's been around is skeptical in the least of triplethink's high levels of concentration and insight into this stuff. Just read what he's saying man! He is spot on.

You do have a point. This is part of the reason that I don't think enlightenment will ever lead to world peace. That which causes aggression is still there, and comes out in various ways, as in the comment you quoted, even though overall there is that presence which can tame wild animals.


Well all you've done with this comment is made people less likely to take what you say seriously. You really think it is the case that anybody who acts differently in different situations is manic or schizophrenic?

Claudiu,

Are you aware that you seemed to have replaced any independent rational thinking that you could do, with Richard's opinion on everything? You also seem to be 'acting' like an actualist (in terms of how you converse with other people and think), whether or not you're seeking an actual freedom, I don't think that's healthy.

Also, keep in mind that 'pretending to be' rational, happy, or non-reactive. Is not the same as actually being rational, happy or non-reactive. They are two very different things.

It's important to be yourself, as you are, and then fix the actual problems that cause your unhappiness. Actualism should not be a crutch, also mimicking Richard won't make you happier, he has a penchant for pissing large numbers of people off at the same time. In other words we shouldn't sweep issues under the carpet, but actually take action.

Action is superior to any thinking.

~ James

I was not aware.

What does it entail and what is unhealthy about it?

Obviously!

I can't be anything other than myself can I? Then I'd be someone else, but that someone else is who I'd then be, so I would still be myself. Or maybe it doesn't mean anything to say "be yourself" but people keep saying it cause it sounds like good advice?



That's certainly a good idea.

Definitely not.

Of course it won't.. Why would it?

That definitely happens.

No doubt.

As with all things, it depends.

I think I could prove based on the available published facts that you are fabricating some false facts and distorting the known facts, that may be part of reason why your conclusions are such as they are. Anyways, you are probably more likely very wrong about what my problems are. Here's what I think:



Sigh, ok, one more unscheduled interjection.

Yes, I agree with most of the posts that we have some big problems.

I am also certain that these are not big problems that only I have or that people are having only with me. I am also certain that these are big problems that I and many other people can and do have in many places with many people.

I came to DhO in its early days because it looked like by having discussions here I may be able to either avoid or solve those problems. I left before long because I could see that I could not either avoid or solve those same problems here at DhO.

I returned to DhO not because I now do want to have these same problems. I came back to DhO because I now have some ideas about how, together, I think we can solve these problems. Because these are such big problems, I think we will be doing something very beneficial if we can solve these problems.

Does this sound reasonable and rational?

I for one, would very much like to see somewhere, anywhere that these problems are either solved or avoided because I am certain I do have and I am certain other people also have other problems that I and they would prefer to be solving.

Does that sound reasonable and rational?

So it comes as no surprise and it is no prize, to right away mostly have to deal with big problems that no place so far has solved or no group together has effectively succeeded in solving.

I think this is so. I think it is so because of causes and conditions that are treated almost as a rule by attempting to avoid problems which are very commonly unavoidable and which are Big Problems which, as an alternative:

1) We can correctly determine

2) We can effectively solve

3) Only by doing this together

Does this sound reasonable or rational?

If you do not agree, then, as I have already said, "kindly go and fuck yourself". I wrote this phrase because I am no less certain that if you disagree with the opening premises and argument and the three points consisting of an alternative practice; then this is exactly what you are already doing. I am also certain that merely by writing this one phrase, I am also no less so, at the least, willing to do this and demonstrating that I can do this. So we should be able to conclude that we are all human beings who are very familiar with how groups of humans almost as an unwritten rule behave.

So I am expecting that there should be more obvious clues in stuff I and others have already written. It appears many have picked up on this; that we can and are are very commonly doing this - harming ourselves somehow - both as individuals and together as a group.

I think I have avoided these problems long enough, I am rested up and I have some new insights about these big problems. At the least, to share. I am willing to make a collective attempt, because I think this is necessary, to solve these big problems together.

If you are interested in Option A, Correctly Diagnosing and Solving Big Problems as a Group- it would at least be good to know this.

If you are interested in Option B, Harming Yourself and As a Group Harming the Group - it would also be good to know this.

This are the two big options we can chose from, everything else depends on what we do regarding these conditions which are undeniably both individual and collective conditions.

I am confident these big problems will have to be solved first and together or I can assure you that: I can not help you or serve you or guide you or advise you or whatever else you may be expecting or hoping or insisting that I do in any other way than by accomplishing this purely by dumb luck.

Is this at least clear enough?

As the first and only order of business from now on until it is resolved one way or the other: in this thread I am at least willing to attempt to work at solving these problems together and to take most of the flack for being willing to spearhead such an effort. I think this will have to come first before I could possibly be of any reliable and consistent benefit in any other regards.

I hope this is clear as a minimum grounds for agreement - so that anyone expecting anything else will move on to some other thread, for now, and try to accomplish other stuff there. I say this because Effective Solutions are probably going to take some time and some serious collective work and reflection on the parts of many people.

I am confident we can effectively and collectively solve these big problems people. If we want to.

---------

So, go ahead; meditate, ruminate, consider, plan, plot, attack me, praise me, pontificate, subvert, imply, research, analyze, argue, cooperate, coordinate, retort, reply; what ever you wish, about all of the above, in this thread,

At the very least, it looks to me, like we have identified and indicated what the first and most urgent topic of this thread is.

I declare all other stuff in this thread, on hold, for now, for my part. You can PM me if you would like to have a conversation other than this one for now.

Please do have a go at these Big Problems if you are interested. To begin with, I am very interested in what others think these big problems that continually take up so much of our time look like to them. I am mostly interested in what the causes and conditions are for these Big Problems appearing and what other causes and conditions would cause these Big Problems to disappear. I will join you all again at a pace which is closer to real time on Saturday.

I joined early on, too. My interest back then was in technique as a solution to all problems. Meanwhile, my expectations of technique have moved closer to a realistic place, and I think I feel more like what you just wrote there.

Took its time, and some hard lessons, too. It is not something that can be easily and quickly grasped intellectually, at least not for people like me. I'm not asking you to indulge me and those who follow routes similar to mine, just reporting from my experience, in the spirit of what you write here:



Count me in.



I'm more in favor of the solving strategy. Avoidance has not served me well so far, though it's often the second best way of dealing with these problems temporarily. At best, it serves as a respite for regaining some strength. But then it's often so tempting to use that strength to perpetuate the problem.



Yes, I've come to realize this as well. In fact, at the moment two people very close to me are busily harming each other for reasons neither of them can articulate, and both are trying to recruit me to join in, to take sides, to mediate, to rescue, to condone, to criticize... it's so mind-numbing, and by not participating, I'm somehow still a factor in the interplay.

Just one manifestation of the Big Problem, and entirely tangent to the DhO (neither of the two is a member here).



One condition is the terribly limited communication bandwidth of written text on a message board.

Human beings broadcast roughly half their communication via body language, which ist totally lost here. Another good forty percent of our communication goes via the audible qualities of speech - intonation and so on. Also a total loss here. So it's approximately 10% of our actual communication which lands in these posts, to be picked up by our readers. Who then have to go on to reconstruct the remaining 90% from memories and fantasies about the other person, and about how the other person will perceive them. This is fertile ground for the narcissistic tendencies we all have - how do I look to them? What do they think of me?

Ok, who's next?

Cheers,
Florian

The problem is that we are humans.

More specifically, we are humans who reify a sense of self and that causes suffering.

I think we all agree Gautama was onto something here.

What this thread highlighted to me is what is the point of having amazing experiences of non-duality, deep powers of concentration, and high level of attainments if we just continue going on reifying ourselves. Which is why we might be better off playing minecraft, or taking psychedelics...

This is a problem not just for pragmatic dharma. Look at the scandals in recent western buddhism, all those highly realised zen masters getting into trouble.

So we can't help being human. But Gautama suggested some ways of dealing with the problem.

And Nathan does point to a more DhO specific problem and a solution - the problem (in a caricatured form) of morality and ethics being divorced from the practice. And the solution I would point to is to make morality and ethics the practice. What this means to me is not just having insight into anatta and the suffering it causes, but striving for the permeation of those insights in everything you do, and a life long practice of striving to combat all the ways in which our sense of self causes problems for us and for others.

Re: Nathan telling me to go fuck myself

I am scientific materialist, as you will have gathered from the fairies thread. And personally, while I don't see it as a solution, I see it more as a help than a hindrance in these matters, especially when it comes down to telling what is delusion and what is not, and helping to see through some of the grander tricks our ego's play on ourselves.

But back to the solution:

Atish'a 8 verses on transforming the mind

With the thought of attaining enlightenment
For the welfare of all beings,
Who are more precious than a wish-fulfilling jewel,
I will constantly practice holding them dear.

Whenever I am with others
I will practice seeing myself as the lowest of all,
And from the very depth of my heart
I will respectfully hold others as supreme.

May I examine my mind in all actions
And as soon as a negative thought occurs,
Since it endangers myself and others
May I firmly face and avert it.

When I see beings of negative disposition
Or those oppressed by negativity or pain,
May I, as if finding a treasure, consider them precious,
For they are rarely met.

Whenever others, due to their jealousy,
Revile and treat me in others unjust ways,
May I accept this defeat myself,
And offer the victory to others.

When someone whom I have helped
Or in whom I have placed great hope
Harms me with great injustice,
May I see that one as a sacred friend.

In short may I offer both directly and indirectly,
All joy and benefit to all beings, my mothers,
And may I myself
Secretly take on all of their hurts and suffering.

May they not be defiled by the concepts
Of the eight mundane concerns,
And aware that all things are illusory,
May them, ungrasping, be free from bondage

Me, too, regarding The First and Last Training (i.e. being a nice person, ethics, morality, sila, precepts, whatever).

It's not easy. Like you say, deep insight into the three characteristics plus being nice to one another will get us a nicer world.

So, here on the DhO we have all these nice gold standards for meditation attainments as well as for deep insights.

What kind of gold standard for "being decent in our dealings with one another" should we apply?

Is a gold standard always (or at least dangerously close to) a caricature?

Questions aimed at the general audience, not at sawfoot or Nathan.

Cheers,
Florian

Yes! I agree entirely. These really are two of the Big Problems - why do we hurt ourselves and why do we hurt each other? Clearly those are two related problems, if not the same one. But one would think the same sort of thing that leads to one also leads to the other, no?

My approach is currently inspired by two individuals I met in Australia who had no souls. They didn't have a calming or loving presence, but they also didn't have a normal or malicious one. In fact, they had zero presence whatsoever. There was no love emanating from them, nor was there aggression - there was nothing emanating from them at all! When I first noticed this I said "it's impossible for you to hurt me". They had managed to completely extricate themselves from the mess that humanity is so that they were both completely unaffected by it - in that all the malice and sorrow that is intrinsic to humanity was no longer 'picked up' by them. Not only that but they also didn't affect it at all on that psychic and emotional level. They did this not by suppressing emotions nor by eliminating emotions per se, but rather by eliminating identity entirely - not only their egos but also their souls. And "their souls" is a bit of a misnomer because they were their souls.

So what remains? It appears that being a soul (and an ego on top of it) was the problem. Without the sorrow that entails, there is no longer anything to prevent them from the full enjoyment of life. Without the malice intrinsic to that, they are completely incapable of ill will. Animals also notice this in that animals don't run away from them when they approach them. It seems they treat them almost as part of the scenery, which is how I subjectively experienced them on an emotional level.

So a lot of what I will say now is not my original ideas but is what I put together by visiting them and reading what they wrote.

I contend that morality can never be the solution to these two Big Problems. Here we have to be careful of definitions. The two soulless people I met had absolutely no morality at all because it was no longer needed. Morality is only necessary when there is the potential for malice in the first place. What do I mean by morality? I mean a set of guidelines spearheaded by love and compassion for one's fellow humans, which proscribe how you should act. In this sense they had no morality. But they also weren't going around hurting people, not even in the slightest. What they have found is that without the soul there is no malice, so they are automatically benevolent - without needing to meditate or spend energy on forming a benevolent presence.

As to the question of "why?", as in, why do we have souls aka malice and sorrow in the first place, it's not because we are reifying selves per se. The soul is not something reified, rather it's just what you are without having to do anything. It's there because of our animal nature. Other mammals at the very least are also malicious and sorrowful (and can be loving too). We aren't fundamentally different, we just have way more brain capacity than they do so all of the problems intrinsic to that get blown up into worldwide proportions - as in the same cause for fighting over territory getting blown up into a World War or two, for example.

Eliminating self-reification doesn't eliminate the soul, rather it goes on in the form of say the bramaviharas or emptiness or non-duality. A presence remains that can be picked up by other people. And that very presence - even if it is a kind or inconspicuous or loving one - by it's very nature perpetuates the presence in others. And so the cycle of hurting ourselves and each other continues ...

It is all quite fascinating. I haven't allowed 'me' as my soul to disappear, yet, but that is my goal.

I also contend that Fun is a big part of the solution here - they were having so much fun being alive, and me with them - and that those questions I asked about existence are also quite relevant here. No soul means no reincarnation of course.

Let me know what you think.

I have no other pressing work remaining this week and the workload I have taken on here continues to grow. I am rested and alert enough at the moment to briefly resume it and so I am going to attempt to move this along for an hour or two today before applying myself more fully to it tomorrow. There have been many good contributions from most everyone to this thread and I thank you for your interest. Even so I find the themes that are emerging are often wearying and progress unnecessarily tedious for many reasons and so it is difficult to remain enthusiastic about this thread at the moment but I am optimistic we can all get past this if we are all interested in that.

I have opened a new thread for anyone who demonstrates an attitude or a prose style that is the least bit combative in any sense elsewhere and I encourage anyone who could be so described by themselves or others to move their posts there, otherwise we will all have to suffer contenting with that quality here and I have consented to participate at that level if anyone insists.

When time allows I will attempt to apply some consideration to what I have already defined as the primary emergent concern of this thread Solving Big Problems which Become Readily Apparent Primarily in the Forms of Collective Problems.

Otherwise I will return sequentially to wherever I have left off responding to the posts which explicitly request or at least imply a response from me or to which I would like to respond even if this is not so. If anyone is overlooked I apologize as this thread is only going to grow longer and more difficult for me to follow and maintain. Just let me know if I missed a post that I should have responded to. I will do my best in every regard but I will make errors of many kinds as I have been attempting to speak in what is for me a casual, informal and a relaxed tone as opposed to some of the others that have been perceived.

I have attempted to 'meet people where they live' in this thread which is usually my approach in the real world.

In that regard I have expressed one of the important dimensions of my childhood and family life, there are others.

My life experience is highly varied and extremely contrasting. On the other extreme from the one above I have spent considerable time in the company of very rough speaking, uncultured, unrefined, harsh and hardened individuals who tend to be highly disrespectful and vulgar to great extremes at all times even when expressed as a form of camaraderie. So I can put things in those terms if you want to push me more in the direction of that kind of a tone. I have been invited to party with the hells angels on more than one occasion, a request I have declined. However that should be an indication of the kinds of people I can also be entirely comfortable conversing with and associating with if circumstances require it. I my case there have been many such and similar circumstances for many reasons not many of which were fortunate for me however I have had to manage those circumstances and the causes, conditions and effects of those circumstances as well as any which could be considered preferable. Among other things I was a tradesman (a carpenter and a builder for 25 years). So please bear all of this in mind to some extent.

I offer this quotation as a good indication of the complexity and seriousness of that diversity of causes and conditions:

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
-Walt Whitman

hi Pablo

Thanks for this introduction to Zubiri Pablo. It does sound like he has done some interesting work. I'm running into Hegel everywhere these days and he seems like one of the influential figures here as well. When I get a better sense of what Hegel's work is like and how people use his body of thought in their work I will be that much better prepared to understand the Phenomenologists work in general. I look forward to better appreciating the Phenomenologists and now also to reading Zubiri.

Thanks
nathan

hi B B,

"Thanks for doing this."

You're welcome, I'm looking forward to having a clearer sense of what 'this' is. I expect it will disclose its nature with time and mindful attention.

"You say you can offer advice on ways to investigate, and I get the impression you'd prefer, or consider more productive, questions of that nature... "

I can attempt to offer advice. I do offer advice or offer to do so sometimes. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it only adds to a persons confusion and uncertainty. I can't count on what will result. If people are willing to ask me what I have found in my study or life experience or what I have learned from this and what I have thought about that I am often willing to share.

"...but I'm more interested in the following, and believe an answer to this is potentially more beneficial - at least for me:

How seriously do you think someone with no major obligations (such as supporting a family) should strive towards the Arahatship of the ten-fetters model as defined in the Pali canon?"

By "seriously" I mean is it something worth dedicating one's life to? Ordaining as a monk for? Spending upwards of a year on retreat for? I don't request that you answer each of these questions, but just want to elaborate on what I mean by that word.

By "think" I mean for you to assume you are forced to take a position on whether or not each of the relevant teachings (such as karma and rebirth) are true, based on your meditative experience alone, and whichever position is more likely. By "true" I mean being in literal accordance with how it is defined in the Pali canon.

By "strive towards" I mean endeavor to attain. By "attain" I mean be for the rest of their lives accurately characterized by."


Thanks for defining your terms, that helps considerably with understanding your meanings and intentions and with my understanding what is important for you. Also thank you for elaborating on what is important for you more specifically because otherwise I would not know anything about it. I am far better equipped to offer some more appropriate and potentially useful insights as a consequence of those kinds of appropriate considerations. I will do my best to respond satisfactorily.

Consider this as like a rough first draft. Feel free to let me know where or how it is deficient for your purposes and I will work on the next draft based on that guidance. Does that sound fair?

[Edit - A more succinct answer has come to mind. If you are impaled on a stake you will have some adequate sense of how seriously you should take this. An example exists in the form of someone who succeed by this means in the form of the story of one of Sariputta's students and attendants who, properly prepared, realized this under these, appropriate in that context, conditions. Something you can research among other excellent examples for yourself at your leisure.]

Personally, I don't think this specific goal could ever be taken too seriously. Anyone else will need to make these determinations for themselves. To put that in context I think that to take it with complete seriousness will not only require but also strongly reinforce your sense of humor and that you will laugh much more often than you would have otherwise but what will develop will be a very, very serious sense of humor. You can get a 'serious sense of humor' other ways but however you may acquire such a nature people with a more conventional sense of humor will not get the jokes a lot of the time.

Personally and based on all of my life experience so far I have no cause for not considering the doctrines in the Pali Canon that are considered Buddha Vacana as anything other than entirely correct. In the same context then I can't see how or why any of the discipline involved is not also very valuable in some way if taken seriously even if in the contexts in which it is undertaken it often seems anachronistic now, some 2500 years later. As an option we could certainly undertake similarly effective disciplines if we first fully understand the intentions and methodologies of those given disciplines and can discern serviceable contemporary equivalents which are more appropriate to our times and places.

I think an important criteria for ever succeeding with becoming an Arahant as the Pali Canon defines it will have to involve becoming a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni or minimally a mendicant and renunciant, as far as becoming an Arahant is concerned in this world. (Which is why I fully support the restoration of the Bhikkhuni Sangha and consider doing so comprehensively urgent and not doing so yesterday contemptible and the fact that this is not obvious to the Bhikkhus something for everyone to think about very, very seriously - as far as the surrounding cultures go I think they and everyone including many of us in the West are very wrong headed about all of this.)

I think it would be significantly easier at this point to become an Arahant in one of the other realms where there is a lot less dukkha in general. I think for that to happen it will probably be an important condition to have established oneself in the stream by the same strict criteria and that any time spent as a bhikkhu/bhikkhuni in this world will be important conditioning that will incline one to do so in a more pleasant world otherwise the pleasure is going to be irresistible to indulge in and more of an obstacle than the extra pain is in this realm.

I think that once you have a clear enough sense of the scale of the difficulties involved by making strong and skillful efforts the expectation of how much effort is involved starts to stretch out. I think what determines the length of a more accurate assessment of that is the depth of the difficulty for you as an individual together with the depth of the insight you are bringing to accurately assessing such a question for yourself.

So the definitive answer is going to come for you and from you and we have to begin by being honest with ourselves and accepting the truth of this. So the only honest answer to the question how seriously do you have to take something like this to have a hope of achieving it is completely seriously.

I often use my case as an example because it also serves as a way to introduce people to where I am at with all of this and helps to demonstrate why I find it so hard to give definitive or final answers to these kinds of questions. If I base my view of this only on experiential criteria such as how various other people define meditation experiences, I don't think there is any experience of consequence that anyone else has reported experiencing that I couldn't recognize from my own experience. There is one exception to this and that is summed up in a declaration like the Buddha made that is usually phrased along these lines; "Birth is ended, done is what needed to be done, the holy life has been lived, there is no more returning to being and becoming in this or any other world."

I see this as very very clear, definitive and final, first of all for the Buddha for himself and then for those he addresses. I think that everything else that the Buddha does and says (in the Pali Canon Texts) supports this. I can see how the entire Buddha Vacana, the Pali Canon, the entire Sangha and the Theravada Buddhist school of thought is an effort to enshrine the doctrines about all of this as rock solid establishment stuff.

So as far as all of that goes, those are the authorities to turn to in relation to all of your questions. You can see what is a rule for them and what they declare to be so and not otherwise and it is all very black and white. I think in the context of that there is still a lot of uncertainties in relation to how this could play out for any one of us. If they are right about everything, then I think we have to lean in the direction of being very conservative about adding to our expectations. Also I think in that context that we are given every indication that the difficulties are serious and that we will really have to give it everything we've got to have any hope of any serious progress towards completing the work.

If you are a woman you will find that if you are entirely serious about this you are going to be as upset by the crap that men are doing in this context. You will probably be just as sad about how they are so insecure about being less of anything than anyone else that they have to oppress women in this context as you would be in any other. You will see that you have about a hundred years of progress to work at on all of this that has been done in other contexts still needs to be done in this one. I find that to be a very strong indication that the institutions involved are highly compromised by profound ignorance on the state, cultural, institutional, community and personal levels and this includes the Sangha so if you are a woman, my heart goes out to you, you have twice the support from me that I would give to any man and I would like you to know that I think all of this is criminal in any context and it is probably the main reason I have strong reservations about the sincerity and authenticity of all of the men involved and this includes the Sangha.

I know the texts might indicate, but then again more likely not, that there has to be some kind of unbroken line of succession of handoffs of something or other that needs to go all the way back to the Buddha. That kind of logic makes no sense to anyone but lawyers so… I very much doubt that this is true of any group today in relation to the Buddha and I know it to not be publicly proven by any group. So no group should be allowed to claim such a status that can't give all of the evidence necessary to demonstrate the truth of it. I take thinking that there is some kind of lineage that long that is verifiable or necessary as an indication of indulging in delusions. So there is no good reason that makes any sense as to why women couldn't have a fully functional Sangha yesterday or anyway and the longer this unfair arrangement persists the sooner it will fully destroy the viability of the Sangha for men as well. What we are seeing today was much more likely what the Buddha meant about women shortening the length of the Sangha by half. Not because of women being included but because of them being excluded by men. Not only that but in terms of one of the recorded versions of this prediction, the one that is more likely an authentic prediction the dates match perfectly, 5000 years shortened to 2500. So in that context either all the men wake up and get this handled right now or else we are actually watching the entire Sangha kill itself live and on TV, so to speak. Watching the Sangha predominantly refusing deal with this wisely does not bode well for any of the other institutions in this world either…

Another thing to get conversant with is the idea of living a holy life of renunciation. One would need to try that out for a while and I think one can do so alone to an extent if not as well as in any other context. This is something to do before we have any sense of whether or not we could even get started with that before we can hope to imagine when we would be finished with that.

I'm not willing to simply conform entirely to any establishment doctrines that exist today in any form anywhere without making a lot of study of what is involved beforehand. I have really given it a big effort and there have always been difficulties with that for me even though sometimes it is the best option for me. Groups that are appropriate to what you are dealing with are really great when you find them and if they will accept you and work with you then that can really be helpful. Sometimes that works very well for a period of time and everyone benefits and then it starts to become counterproductive, other times it just gets better for a person or a group. A big part of the difficulty is often just finding a group that is going to be suitable for you personally at a given point in your life.

I just so happen to come down on the side of the Buddha Vacana most of the time after I have really hashed something out for myself and gathered a lot of experience with it first hand, but that doesn't mean that all of the subsequent details and uncertainties that the various institutions involved attempted to further set in stone beyond those which they attribute to the Buddha himself are more helpful than the uncertainties which remained.

So that would be my first advice, find out what the Buddha said in response to the same or similar questions. I say that because he is the only one who so far receives my complete confidence without any reservations.

I do think the difficulties any of us have are usually greater than the insight we have to deal with those difficulties. That should be another indication of just how steep the learning curve and the workload can be sometimes.

I know if I could find a Noble Bhikkhu and his associates who were willing, that I thought could be excellent examples and guides in entering into that life of renunciation and doing this work that way, that I would drop everything else and do that at any moment. So far for me finding precisely that is a lot harder than it looks. I have found excellent Bhikkhus who I have the utmost respect and regard for but more often than not they are unwilling to take on that kind of responsibility with anyone and I am not at all surprised because it is a big responsibility and a lot of work even if someone is very well prepared.

So if you are very serious about all of this already and you understand how serious all of this is then I suggest you give preparing for that day every effort and that like me you continue your search for someone who is clearly making progress ahead of you on the path and beg them to take you on. The best way to move them to take you on is by doing as much of that work for them beforehand that they are otherwise going to have to do for you.

If you have a family you are probably very invested in those commitments and have strong feelings in those regards. I would not walk away from that without thoroughly considering everything very very carefully. I can't advise you to do such a thing at all and I will not. The Buddha was in a similar situation and he just walked away. So it would appear that he considered all of this much more serious and he is the most serious person I have ever heard of. I would consider the situation very serious either way and I am neither married nor do I have children and I do not intend to take on any of those very serious responsibilities either. I do think this is a serious commitment that if you do well understand you will also understand you should continue to take seriously so in such a case I would take all of that much more into consideration.

In such a context I would make my criteria for ordaining very high. We aren't going to become the Buddha on our own when we join the Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni Sangha, we are going to be disciples and we need to understand very very well what we are entering into and committing to and take it much more seriously than a marriage particularly if we are leaving a marriage to do so. Also, as I indicated we need to very carefully assess the authenticity and viability of any community we make such a commitment to.

If you don't have a family then I think if you want to succeed with the aims as these are defined in the Pali Canon then you should give it everything you have starting right now and put arriving at the goal entirely out of your mind. I would study and practice all of it as if I was a monk and at the same time I would work and save and travel and search for a community that I like and that likes me where I can really start doing it entirely 'by the book'.

If you want to try out being a bhikkhu for a while the easiest place to do that is Thailand, they really don't mind if you ordain there at various monasteries for a short period and then disrobe and then do so again later at the same or some other place. Other countries are more inclined to take the attitude that either you are going to stick with it once you start and think if you stop at any point for any reason that you are just giving up because you are not ever going to be suitable to do this. So that is very good to know, how this is perceived differently in different places in SE Asia. In the west it is very difficult finding anyone who will take on a new monk and the tendency is to want to see a few years of serious involvement first and then they will be more comfortable with maybe taking someone on. No matter how you go into it it will be far better if you get very clear about a lot of stuff before hand.

I would really like to do this if the conditions were right but even defining that has been a learning curve and I am still learning and preparing all the time. The advantage of remaining unattached, unaffiliated and secular is that I can enjoy those freedoms as minimal and limited as those are. The better I understand how differently freedom is viewed from a bhikkhu's perspective the less of a culture shock I will face if and when I enter into that life in any permanent sense. If you know nothing about what is involved I suspect it will come as such a shock that your staying power will be measured in days and not years.

I hope that helps, if I'm still falling short of the kind of info or perspective you are looking for just let me know and I will give it another try.

straight trippin
triplethink

hi Florian,

Great to see you here too. It will be interesting to see how long we can maintain an interest this time. Internet forums become a a real grind much of the time. I don't know why anyone would put up with it for more than a few months before going offline again for as many years. Must be like those Australian guys. I can imagine all sorts of very nefarious interests that would be very keen to learn those kinds of techniques. We should pray they never do.

I'm doing alright, things are fairly good in general, everyone is acceptably healthy and there are no big crises at the moment. I'm cool, then again the temperature outside around here lately has been around -25 C or -13 F so that is not so surprising.

Claudiu has a good bead on that tag, an airhead affirmation kind of thing. Blonde Power.

Looking forward to reading and discussing whenever you show up or I run across you hereabouts,

all the best
nathan

hi Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem

"Would you agree with the notion that if it's not fun then what's the point really? Given some qualifications, of course."

In terms of social interaction of any kind that might be considered recreational, more likely yes, otherwise no. For my own part, in solitude, probably not most of the time. Not that my life even when alone can't be so, only that it isn't an important indicator of value for me in most important respects. I can take an interest in most subjects if I apply myself and learn how it is fun in time regardless.

"Existence does concern me greatly. This bit is interesting: "it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely". Because at first glance, it would indeed seem straightforward to do so. Namely, apply knife to throat or bullet to temple or whatever."

I would emphatically insist that death and final lasting extinction are not the same kinds of occurrences except for very exceptional people who would well understand most if not all of the full implications of each type of ending. I think people who expect that these are somehow causally linked except under exceptional circumstances to be very upset to learn otherwise. Everyone is naturally free to think differently or differently for whatever reasons but I am unlikely to shift my thinking about this. Perhaps in another life I will take another position on it - but I think it unlikely even if I as I suspect is highly likely that - I at some point loose all memory of life previous again and yet I am later in a position to form any equivalent understandings subsequent to any rebirth in any form.

I have been dead a couple of times and was not seeking to be and that was instructive, not much to say about death except that the two are not at all the same. Death has an appearance of continuity more resembling a kind of continuity of that of life, particularly of the life immediately previous and which wanders on in a slightly altered form. The symbol for the void which the mind generates upon emerging from extinction is and will remain entirely unique within the mind and serves an entirely different function.

"So by existence you mean... well yes, let's start from there - what do you mean by existence, exactly? Because you see, I find myself also currently existing, and have also tasted non-existence, and I do wish to experience that non-existence on a permanent basis.. yet the non-existence I crave still involves conscious experience, you see? And it seems yours does too, because you said: "The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions." So the non-existence you speak of does exist in some way. I think it's time we start using some different terms, or perhaps coining new ones!"

Well it is true that this is not a functionally or structurally useful description and so I will attempt to describe this in that way for you now.

Bearing in mind the following;

I have had to examine and ponder the nature of just this for a very long time very carefully, and this is not an absolute certainty for me yet but nearer than it has ever been, yet this description satisfies all of my related observations and all of my relevant understanding in the most satisfying way so far, I expect it highly unlikely I could further improve my understanding about this in any way I have yet to consider and it is in accord with the related declarations which are a part of the Buddha Vacana;

By existence I mean the ongoing presence of whatever qualities of whatever number which when compounding always begin with and include as a minimum - percipience, the supreme nutriment, as the Buddha described it, which can not be investigated directly as this is the quality most directly related to insight.

Further when this quality is isolated it cannot act to produce insight as insight requires at a minimum two qualities. When this quality is isolated one is in the fourth jhana and in the realm of neither percipience nor non percipience. So it can be deduced in this way and others that insight is most directly related to this one quality of percipience. When this first and last quality of percipience is abandoned then all existence is in that moment, for however long that moment persists, extinct for such a one and that is nibbana, extinction, cessation or not existence as I have elsewhere referred to this. Nothing is felt or perceived or exists together or in concert together with not existing. Percipience of extinction is impossible as is clear for all who directly and rightly understand this.

In this lifetime my first direct experience of complete cessation took place when I was 15 and I did not understand what occurred at all and I had no access to any other sources of understanding to draw upon after that for over 20 years. I was searching for any such understanding and eventually I found the best sources I think are available. Today such information is much more readily accessible and we are all very fortunate that this is this way at the moment. In my case even after discovering to my great joy and surprise that the Pali Canon existed and was accessible for the likes of me I began studying with every spare moment available. I also significantly improved my practices, habits, methods and so on including my understandings in many ways thereby.

So after another 15 years of significantly better directed study and research and careful methodical consideration I can very confidently give you the explanation I am attempting to give you now.

Upon emerging from extinction, which I am happy to declare unknowable and inviolable, the immediate absorption is unified in one of the three signs as others have well explained. It is mistaking that subsequent sign for the extinction for the extinction itself which for many of us, particularly those who have accessed this kind of experience but for various reasons have lacked the nec essary insights or guidance for a long time, may all too easily and persistently be cause to entirely misunderstand these truths.

Directly and correctly understanding this important difference between complete absence of qualities of sensation, of sense forms, of all qualities of form and of all mental qualities and the like; understanding the difference between that complete extinction and the sign which the mind fabricates to symbolize this complete absence of qualities and properties and conditions and how the purpose of the sign is of primary importance in the way that it impresses directly just this, correctly relating the nature of the extinction or not existing to the nature of existing or samsara is of vital importance for still further progress on the path."

I will stop there for today Claudiu. I suggest you chew on this, I admit, very deep subject and very densely phrased response for a while. I will pick up here again later this weekend. So if there is something about what I said so far or how I have worded or phrased this that is unclear for you we can return to that before I move on with replying to your post. I say so because I think there is far too much involved in your questions to be in any way easily or adequately dealt with in simply this or any one post in any response from anyone and we will have to work through this with much more care or else tolerate posts, at least on my part, that are extremely dense and extremely long to treat the subjects you have so casually raised with anything resembling a competent and considered response.

His tone changed very suddenly following my criticism. Who would change his personality so drastically just to placate or sideline a critic on a forum? The answer is: someone who cares a lot about the image he is trying to portray. To me that's not enlightened, that's just ordinary, every day ego. The other thing is the pompous style of writing, which again indicates the ego is in control. Some paragraphs and sentences are so convoluted that they simply do not make sense. So I made my "internet diagnosis" based on that (I agree it was rude and I should have left it out, but I was feeling fed up).


I found this blog entry which says it perfectly:


Pretentious, inflated, indulgent writing is bad. Always.
Posted on December 7, 2012 by ericjbaker

I don’t like to speak in absolutes when it comes to writing, partly because I’m not a fan of rules. For every writing rule I hear, a successful rule-breaker comes to mind.

However, with absolute certainty, I can declare that wordy, pretentious writing is bad. If a sentence has 90 stuffy words when it only needs 25 short ones, it’s bad writing. If a writer is trying to impress us with his expensive-looking vocabulary instead of informing, entertaining, or touching our souls, it’s bad writing.

Wordy, pretentious writing is only acceptable as satire. Or when I use it as an example in a blog post, because everything I do is dripping with cool.

[ ........................]


I once ruffled a professor’s plumage by mocking a rambling, incoherent article we were forced to read. By “read,” I mean stare at the first 900-word paragraph (which also served as the opening sentence) until my eyes glazed over.
When Hitch said, "Always make the audience suffer as much as possible," he wasn't talking to writers.

The professor said, “But this is college-level writing, you must understand.”

And I said, “Indeed. It’s also bad writing. I have the intellectual firepower to understand the article, but I don’t have the patience to read something that is deliberately made obscure by someone more interested in waving her Ph.D. around than she is in conveying meaning.”

My point was not well received.

[...........................]

I believe the chief sin of pretentious writing is that the writer has focused on himself and not the reader. Even in an essay based on personal experience, we write for the reader to be amused, entertained, riled, or to feel some other emotion, not so they are impressed with our vocabulary.

Pretentious writing is often constructed in a passive way, as well. Passive writing is objectively inferior to active writing, The writer has a choice between being pedantic and passive or informative/entertaining and active. The differences are pretty stark. It should be a no brainer.

Thanks, Nathan. I'll have to read it again a few times but on first reading everything seems clear enough, so feel free to move on. Think of my initial questions as a scatter-shot to point our conversation in, I hope, a mutually interesting direction. Now, as you are doing, it will require some more work to address them properly. But fun work I hope =).

Hi Nathan. It's great to see this topic come up again. The above caught my eye (as you might imagine:-). Over the years I have come upon a number of statements that seem to imply something different though admittedly it may be that I don't have the terminology straight and these refer to something else. Thoughts?

MN 111:
"Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment"

AN 9.43 Bodily Witness:
"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there. It is to this extent that one is
described by the Blessed One as a bodily witness without a sequel."

AN 9.44 - Released Through Discernment

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released
through discernment without a sequel."

AN 9.45 Released Both Ways

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through
discernment. It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released both ways without a sequel."


AN 10.6:

Then Ven. Ananda ...said to the Blessed One, "Lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would
neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the
dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of
nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard
to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"

"Yes, Ananda, he could..."

"But how, lord, ...?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the
resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
Unbinding.' It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be
percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the
infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he
would still be percipient."

Thank you so much for such a long and interesting reply with many good points. However, it didn't quite cover what I was looking for...

“Personally and based on all of my life experience so far I have no cause for not considering the doctrines in the Pali Canon that are considered Buddha Vacana as anything other than entirely correct. ”

“I just so happen to come down on the side of the Buddha Vacana most of the time after I have really hashed something out for myself and gathered a lot of experience with it first hand ”

“So if you are very serious about all of this already and you understand how serious all of this is ...”

“I would emphatically insist that death and final lasting extinction are not the same kinds of occurrences except for very exceptional people who would well understand most if not all of the full implications of each type of ending. ”

“I have been dead a couple of times ...”

Here is an attempt at clarification: in relation to the above quotes, what I believe would be most helpful for me—and I suspect many others—is for you to explain why you have come to the (tentative) conclusions that you have on the following topics: rebirth; the requirement of the attainment of the Arahatship of the ten-fetters model of the Pali canon in order to no longer be reborn; and the existence and effects of karma (that may lead to, for example in the cases of your parents, rebirths in pleasant abodes in their next lifetimes).

Though I'm inclined to accept the 10-fetters model (strictly interpreted) as valid, I'm still skeptical of these teachings. In particular, rebirth seems to be founded largely on visions of past lives, and the Buddha employing his “divine eye” to see karma and rebirth in effect on other beings. Something you may want to touch on in your response: how can such visions be relied upon, especially given that many people can induce out-of-body experiences that can seem similarly real and alien (though the illusion apparently breaks down once they demand of their unconscious experiences they have insufficient mental references for)?

Though I can't at this time ever see myself ordaining as a bhikkhu, having a bit more confidence in these teachings may one day make all the difference in whether or not I choose to pursue higher levels of attainment on a retreat of a number of months.

May you do whatever needs doing whenever it's best to do so,

B

hi B

quick question, do you prefer two B's or just the one B?

anyhowz, I left you with a rough draft, so I might as well get this homework finished and hand it in.



Sure, I'll give it a go. I don't expect anyone to just believe stuff because I or anyone else says something. I had the same problems with the old man and his pals. I grew up in church and by the time I was getting into my teens all that gee whizz spooky happy stuff was starting to sound pretty medieval to me. Especially the soul thing.

Here's the weird part for me, and it has taken a lot of reflection to have a sense of it. I have had to get that sense of it by using that super vision that people call 20/20 hindsight.

y'know, I guess it is all kinda like Dr. Who. He can tell people where he is coming from or where he is going to and sometimes some understand, but no one else really gets it until they find themselves in the same box.

Funny about the boxes, and peoples.

Its all kind of the same deal, like a coin with two sides; everything, everything with features is on this side of the coin and the other side is blank or, as we are sometimes fond of saying, emptiness. The emptiness which is either a bit scary or else you are one of those who is hopelessly enamored with it anyways. Again, only two sides really. Same deal.

So, now that I am basically like a super hero (because it is so freaking cold onside that I have my long underwear on) and by using my super powers (which I hear are called 20/20 hindsight). I have sort of sussed this out;

Like I said, I grew up in this happy home with Pastor dad and mom and they are/were very sweet and a bit old fashioned but it was all very nice and it was great because there was all the macaroni and cheese a young boy could ever desire. It did kind of grind on and get tedious because every Sunday morning and Sunday night and Mondays and Tuesdays and Thursdays and Saturdays and I mean every freaking week year in and year out there I was, in church, hearing about my eternal soul and how it could either be a really great deal for me or really crappy, forever. It got old, way before I did.

So I know the airy fairy stuff just wears on you and then grates on you when everything around you seems quite different from that all the time. So like anyone, I just started checking out and drifting off whenever I heard the key words, "soul, spirit, Holy Spirit, Jesus, repent, heaven," and like that. Mostly because the coolest thing I could think about instead was "Neal Armstrong" or "Saturn V booster package" or something else that was very cool.

The soul thing was especially frustrating because I was kind of worried about it and mostly was just not buying it anymore.

I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that I was changing, I don't mean that I was a half inch taller every six months, I mean that one day I didn't know what an electron was and the next day, after reading up on it, I could actually get how the batteries in my cooler toys were getting the lights to go on. So, even if the soul was like that, it was really no big deal. Then I would check with the old man, "is my soul like the electrons in my batteries?" "No." "Huh, rats." Is it like my thoughts? "No." "Huh, nuts." It would go on and on like that, like one of those games you play in the car on a long trip, like - I spy with my little eye, something that looks like a soul. I could not win, no matter what kind of "Is the soul like a..." I tried.

So I was getting really pissed off about that.

Here's where the 20/20 hindsight comes in, and you are not going to believe this, because I still don't believe it, so really we both have the same issues with this and I will probably never go and be a monk either. Looking back now, I can see how when I was a kid, and still now, I am basically hard wired to be doing Satipatthana 24/7. Satipatthana is basically just Vipassana on steroids if you're wondering. So looking back now, and I can't tell when it started because it all looks the same to me, it looks like I have been doing Satipatthana all along, whether I ever wanted to or not.

I'm doing it now, I was doing it yesterday, I was doing it until five a.m. yesterday because most of the time the freaking thing will just not stop and let me drift off into la la land. I don't know, I don't know why that is like that, and it mostly sucks.

Most of my life I didn't think of it as Satipatthana that won't shut off either, mostly I thought of it as noticing in terms of all of the details how everything was just little bits and pieces of other stuff. For instance with the soul thing. Suppose I never found it? Was I just supposed to buy into the idea anyways? That's what the 'experts' (Dad, all his buddies, all his big books) said. It's there son, you just have to believe. Just believe? Just believe? Are you nuts? You are nuts aren't you? You are all freaking out of your minds aren't you? They really did seem crazy to me because the deal was whether I had the good soul and went to the happy place or I had the bad soul and went to the nasty place, they said my body and my mind was going too.

That just made no sense at all, not to me. It made sense to everybody else at church, but it just didn't seem even possible to me. Couldn't be, because I was hard wired to do Satipatthana day and night. (Which I can understand how no one would believe, even around here, because usually Satipatthana is hard to turn on, not hard to turn off.) I could see, with what people around here call Vipassana all the time, how 1) It didn't look like I had a soul, so how could that even be a problem? and 2) my body and my mind were all just little bits of cells and electrons and atoms and tissues and fluids and hormones and such.

So, if my body and mind and, seemingly everything else, were constantly changing and falling apart and being built again slightly different all the time, then how could you send it to heaven or hell? I mean, which one? Which body, which mind? No matter which one you sent to hell why would you because there was all the other versions and why should one body and mind have to suffer when it was all the other ones that didn't either have a soul or else couldn't buy into the idea?

So, maybe you can see my predicament, even now, maybe not. It would be good if you could see it because at this point it is why I get that, whether it shows up in the happy place or the sad place, the freaking thing is just going to keep on showing up, I mean the body and the mind. It is really really hard to get rid of that stuff.

Honestly, I don't expect you or anyone to believe it. It is like the Dr. Who thing. I can tell you that this is how it is, that you just keep building it (the body, the mind), all by yourself with no help at all, over and over again, but you will not ever get it until you are in the same box.

So that sucks. But I can't make it otherwise and if there is something I want, its that. I know that probably doesn't help, I know that sucks too, but that's really all I can say about it because it just keeps happening and it will keep happening until I find the last switch that makes the machine go on and on and on and then it will finally, blessedly, be turned off.

That's my story and its sticking with me.
I am in the same place with this as you, pretty much. I really am. On the one hand the monk thing looks good and on the other hand the monkey thing looks good. Or bad and bad, or whatever. It's like the coin thing, monk, monkey, same side of the coin really, same deal. So what's the difference anyways?

How can my visions be counted on? I don't know, probably can't be. Its all just seeing right? How, why should I trust any of it? According to pretty much all of science that we know, there is nothing there anyways, just mostly nothing. All the features are just the tiniest bits of dust and mostly empty space. So which one is real? Are the faeries real or is the nothing much but space real. Is Sawtooth the crazy one because he sees solid material substance when there is pretty much nothing but empty space there or am I the crazy one because sometimes I see faeries there? Maybe actually we're both nuts, maybe we are all nuts, looks more like we are all nuts and we are all seeing things that aren't there to me.

I get that none of this helps, doesn't help you, doesn't help me, doesn't help sawtooth, and that this sucks, so I guess we are all just crazy people in the end. I figure, with the won't freaking turn off satipatthana, and the superpowered 20/20 hindsight that my best bet is to just find the last switch, turn off the whole thing and then, at the very least, I won't have to just keep on being a crazy person.

Then again, maybe it doesn't work like that, maybe it looks more like this, like it does now, where being even a little less crazy actually looks even crazier (not only to everyone else, but also to me) and maybe when I am not at all crazy I will look like a totally crazy person but I will be sane. I guess we'll just have to see, or wait, it all looks crazy...

So, I don't know and I am just going to try to turn it off entirely and see if that works, either it will or it won't. I don't think anyone can believe anything that they just can't believe, so I don't worry about that because that is also just how it is.

good luck with it
nathan

hi T DC

You seem to be very familiar with Jhana yourself so I think the best thing here would be for you to go back into it and all along while you are doing it see if you can do any of that without insight. I suggest you start right at the beginning.

So.

When you first sit down to steady and unify your mind and you are noting the five hindering qualities:

1. Sensual Desire
2. Ill-will
3. Sloth and Torpor
4. Restlessness and Remorse
5. Doubt

See if you can notice these, without using insight. If you can, let me know how you do it. It would be really handy.

Then, when you finally have all of these suppressed or overcome or otherwise gone, and these are replaced by these five qualities, the opposite qualities, the First Jhana qualities:

1. Applied thought
2. Sustained thought
3. Rapture
4. Happiness
5. One-pointedness of Mind

See if you can notice these, without using insight. If you can do all of that and replace the first five qualities with the opposite qualities and you are in your happy place there, the access concentration state that you are so cool with. Then, since you can do all of the without any insight, let me know how you do that. Because this would be even more handy.

Seeing as you are familiar with Jhana, you know that when you are in Jhana, you also know that these five qualities that were there in access concentration are now there as well. You know this because by applying and sustaining those five qualities on one object you unified them and now you are in (what is called around here hard Jhana) the first Jhana (and these five qualities are all that you can feel now).

So seeing that you know this going from access concentration to Jhana is happening and that you are in Hard Jhana now totally unified and completely in Jhana and you are knowing it, how is it that you know it without insight?

That would be great to know.

Then, having known all that, whether you exit the Jhana or not when you move to the next Jhana and so on to the fourth one and you have to completely abandon qualities to do that, how then do you abandon qualities completely without insight?

I would love to know how you do that without insight, because it would be so much easier that way.

So far I can try to believe what you are saying about no insight because maybe you have some amazing technique that I have never heard of and that would be great to know about so, ok, I look forward to knowing all about it.

Now it gets harder for me to believe it and I will explain why.

So say, there you are, sitting in the third jhana and:

"When his practice matures he enters the third jhana, which has the two jhana factors that remain when the rapture disappears, happiness and one-pointedness, and which the suttas describe as follows:

With the fading away of rapture, he dwells in equanimity, mindful and discerning; and he experiences in his own person that happiness of which the noble ones say: 'Happily lives he who is equanimous and mindful' — thus he enters and dwells in the third jhana. (M.i,182; Vbh.245)

So now you are in the Fourth Jhana and it looks, from the above that you didn't even have to leave the third one.

So now there is only the Fourth Jhana happening and

"In addition we also find, "purity of mindfulness due to equanimity" (upekkhasatiparisuddhi). The Vibhanga explains: "This mindfulness is cleared, purified, clarified by equanimity" (Vbh. 261), and Buddhaghosa adds: "for the mindfulness in this jhana is quite purified, and its purification is effected by equanimity, not by anything else" (Vism.167; PP.174)."

Everything is fine, just fine, cool.

So now we have only the four Immaterial Jhanas left right?

"Beyond the four jhanas lie four higher attainments in the scale of concentration, referred to in the suttas as the "peaceful immaterial liberations transcending material form" (santa vimokkha atikammarupe aruppa, M.i,33). In the commentaries they are also called the immaterial jhanas, and while this expression is not found in the suttas it seems appropriate in so far as these states correspond to jhanic levels of consciousness and continue the same process of mental unification initiated by the original four jhanas, now sometimes called the fine-material jhanas. The immaterial jhanas are designated, not by numerical names like their predecessors, but by the names of their objective spheres: the base of boundless space, the base of boundless consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.[18] They receive the designation "immaterial" or " formless" (arupa) because they are achieved by surmounting all perceptions of material form, including the subtle form of the counterpart sign which served as the object of the previous jhanas, and because they are the subjective correlates of the immaterial planes of existence."

So because not everyone else knows all about this I'll add the rest of the details too, from Access to Insight:

"the fine-material jhanas follow a fixed sequence and must be attained in the order in which they are presented. That is, the meditator who wishes to achieve the immaterial jhanas must begin with the base of boundless space and then proceed step by step up to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. However, an important difference separates the modes of progress in the two cases. In the case of the fine-material jhanas, the ascent from one jhana to another involves a surmounting of jhana factors. To rise from the first jhana to the second the meditator must eliminate applied thought and sustained thought, to rise from the second to the third he must overcome rapture, and to rise from the third to the fourth he must replace pleasant with neutral feeling. Thus progress involves a reduction and refinement of the jhana factors, from the initial five to the culmination in one-pointedness and neutral feeling.

Once the fourth jhana is reached the jhana factors remain constant, and in higher ascent to the immaterial attainments there is no further elimination of jhana factors. For this reason the formless jhanas, when classified from the perspective of their factorial constitution as is done in the Abhidhamma, are considered modes of the fourth jhana. They are all two-factored jhanas, constituted by one-pointedness and equanimous feeling.

Rather than being determined by a surmounting of factors, the order of the immaterial jhanas is determined by a surmounting of objects. Whereas for the lower jhanas the object can remain constant but the factors must be changed, for the immaterial jhanas the factors remain constant while the objects change. The base of boundless space eliminates the kasina object of the fourth jhana, the base of boundless consciousness surmounts the object of the base of boundless space, the base of nothingness surmounts the object of base of boundless consciousness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception surmounts the objects the object of the base of nothingness.

Because the objects become progressively more subtle at each level, the jhana factors of equanimous feeling and one-pointedness, while remaining constant in nature throughout, become correspondingly more refined in quality. Buddhaghosa illustrates this with a simile of four pieces of cloth of the same measurements, spun by the same person, yet made of thick, thin, thinner and very thin thread respectively (Vism. 339; PP.369). Also, whereas the four lower jhanas can each take a variety of objects — the ten kasinas, the in-and-out breath, etc. — and do not stand in any integral relation to these objects, the four immaterial jhanas each take a single object inseparably related to the attainment itself. The first is attained solely with the base of boundless space as object, the second with the base of boundless consciousness, and so forth."

So, I'm still curious how you could stay in the fourth jhana and now by only changing objects a person could move from one jhana to the next on up to a subtler condition, especially if it is one they have never known before, without any insight?

Also, without any insight present at that time, in that immaterial jhana, how would they even be able to know what was happening then and there, either at the time or afterwards?

I have to admit now, that I think I know how. I should admit too, that I have been partly teasing you, especially with the dickish way I wrote this up and addressed it to you. So I should apologize, for being a smart ass and a dick about it.

I'm sorry, ok? But, I do sort of think, by lecturing me about how there is no insight during Jhana or in getting on with any of it, you were kind of being a fool, if not a dick as well. So, no need to apologize, we all have our ideas of what is going on, I get that too.

However, my POV, having actually, honestly, done this, is, that you need insight all the way until the end, all the way through.

I even think, and this will be a total surprise if someone thinks it is otherwise, that in the end, in the final, highest immaterial jhana which is all that is left of a Hard Fourth Jhana, in the state called Neither Percipience Nor Non Percipience that there is only one mental quality remaining, and that this one quality, the only quality, is Percipience Itself.

To my percipience quality, the only one I have, it looks pretty much like, yup, that is all that is there. Not even nothing else, is perceived, because we were already perceiving Nothing Else, in the previous Immaterial Jhana, Nothingness.

So all there is in that Fourth Immaterial Jhana, or if you prefer the more confusing title Eighth Jhana, all that is left is percipience. Now my thinking, my position, my premise, my argument and my conclusion would all be this:

That percipience is exactly the same thing as insight.

What do you think?

What I thought, before too long, was, shucks, no point in this, might as well ditch the percipience too. That's what I did.

Now, how could that insight arise without insight?

I dunno.Sure. I am either really, really advanced or really, really not or else I am an idiot savant, my inclination is for the latter.

What I will say, for sure, is that I do have an imagination. Not only that it is a dangerous quality as well, because sometimes when you write, "I can imagine..." people may still imagine that you can't imagine, go figure.

all the best
nathan

And you did.

I did ask for it.
So, thank you, and I am doing my best. Just like you.

So. Here goes, with the attainment thing. I think there is a guy who was asking me over in the tripleops thread about just doing a study on it and I am all for that. I haven't checked around here but if it isn't already here somewhere then either with some help or on my own I will head out into the mighty interwebz or into my dusty bookshelf and collect up all those references to the four or eight types of Noble Beings and all of that related doodling and noodling and scoop it all up and sort it all out and post the whole works up. Organize it, mull it over, and try to figure out if I could possibly be one of those or another or none or whatever.

I have thought about it. Honestly. Seriously. I have. I'm sure it looks like I am being evasive. Or like I am spooked that if I just pick one and if it is the wrong one that it will just go 'poof' and I will loose all my superpowers or whatever and then next time Galactus attempts to eat the entire planet we will all be toast. But no.

I just, honestly, seriously, do not freaking know.

Ok?

I mean, what do you want from me? Lies? Pretending? What?

Want me to just agree that all of the niggling little things that are still not quite right are not important? They look most important to me at this point. Should I hide that from you? Do you not want to know anything about that? Do you want all of that to also be a complete surprise at some point?

Just let me know. I will answer you, definitively, when I know how you want your answer on this to look. If you want the dogmatic answer I'll work up that one. If you want the technicalities I'll go that way with it. I'm easy, I can look at it a lot of ways. That is part of my dilemma too.

I know that I have got where I am with this, all of this, by being honest with myself.
I also know that being honest with myself does not work, most of the time, with other people.
Many more other people than not, all my life so far, no matter how honest I might attempt to be with myself, no matter how or why or in what way I might still be deluding myself or not, no matter about all of that, still would prefer:

That I say to them
whatever it is that they have already decided that they want to hear from me.

So, which is it, which one, which way do YOU want it?

The honest answer was and is.

"I dunno."

If that sorts it all out for you, great.

If not and we need to go into the minutia, bit by bit, then, lets do it, I'm game. Lets 'shrink' my 'attainment'. That will be interesting, at least for me. Maybe I'm good and its my attainment that has issues with it. Again, I dunno.

Can only give it a shot and then see.

love and puppies
nathan

hi Katy,

I know you were addressing Sawfoot, but thanks for what you wrote anyways, and thank you Sawfoot for, well, just thank you anyways. Btw, I like your posts Katy, what I have seen, and even Sawfoot's too, just so you know, believe me or not.

I think I know what 'my problem' is. I think other people know it too, which is why I don't see any point in pretending about it.

I'm normal. Well, that word is not going to work either, I'm... not perfect, yeah, works but is kind of meaningless too in a way, so...

Here is the crux of the matter for me, maybe, even more than a few other people.

We live in the year 2000's times. We have still got a few of the books from way back and we can still read those old books and so we know about the Buddha and all of his superscience enlightenment stuff and we are into it and everything too.

And we have slowly sussed it out, about all of that superscience stuff and we can do all of that stuff too. There is a whole bunch of people virtually around here that can do all of that stuff. We get the Buddha science and the Buddha technology and we can understand all of that and do all that and still we are... not normal quite and... not not normal.... we are still...

well, humans. So.

The only other part is the morality and virtue and discipline and disenchantmenting, renouncing and abandoning and all of that.

So, what is the deal? Which part is the part that would solve the whole are we or aren't we, as we say hereabouts 1, 2, 3, or 4 -ish-ly enlightened or not?

Because, to say the least, the morality and ethics stuff has not gotten any easier these days.

Not only that but if you are being good some ways, it ends up being bad some other ways, so what is the deal?

Do we all have to go off and ordain and wear those bathrobes and beg for scraps and stuff? Because man, around here that would be a real problem for the people around here.

So with the 1234 stuff, how much mr. nice guy is enough? Not enough? Etc.?

Even if it is all about 'them', even if I am just irrelevant, basically not here, still then, I can't help but notice, it's not enough, I am still not getting right.

And I still don't know, if I died, at some point, would that just be it? Would it still be ticking along? Why? Why not? What up with this?

So, I'll try to get along, and be nice, and apologize because I'm still not nice enough or because if I'm nice then I'm still just doing it to get along or too pleased with how that is or whatever, because I would just like to get it sorted out.

And for Katy's sake, if for no other reason.

Anyhow, how do we get this sorted out? Is it impossible? Does that mean we are never getting out of here and we just have to start over every time or is it just going to deal with itself or what?

So this is the crux of it, how much or little or whatever disillusioned, disenchanted, renouncing, abandoning, high moral and ethical conduct and self restraint and all of it is enough for the 1234s?

Does the morality and virtue and discipline need to be flawless and stainless and pleasing to the noble ones and all of that right at 1 or is it going to be a problem still at 4 or what?

I don't think I have solved this one. I don't think I should pretend with it. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one who would like to get this sorted out as well.

I think it must be something like some of it is done in 1 and all of it is done in 4 but how much of what? What does an Arahant say at the drive through when they ask him/her what he/she wants?

I have some notions, it seems important, but obviously I don't really know. I like to know. I can totally relax when I know. Either way. So, I'm just throwing it out there. How do we solve this one? Or ten, or whatever other, niggling little things, because this would explain a lot of things, either way.

Any ideas, clues, thoughts, feelings, anyone?

thanks for your consideration
nathan

My goodness, this thread is possibly the most honest, deep-digging thread I have ever seen on here.

Triplethink asks all the questions I (we?) have been mulling over since being introduced to the whole 1234 thing. It's quite wonderful.

One thing I have witnessed: When I ordained temporarily at Panditarama Forest Monastery a couple of years ago, during a monk get-together, I witnessed Sayadaw U Pandita performing the daily ablution with a more junior (but quite senior) monk in which he confesses and apologizes for all the misdeeds he committed the previous day and promises to be more careful the next day. And if I have ever met an Arahant, Sayadaw U Pandita would be the one. This experience was so inspiring.

I don't know anything really. All I know is I admire yogis (mostly of the past) who have spent years in solitude. I admire those who take the vow never to lie down. I admire humility and courage and fearlessness. Two yogis whose autobiographies I have read partially, I admire the most are Shabkar, a 19th century Tibetan yogi, and Hsu Yun or Empty Cloud, a Chinese Zen master who lived relatively recently.

But then, I question: does this admiration hold me back in some ways? Am I trying to be somebody I am not (yes)? Should I just quit trying so hard (yes!)? But what if I quit trying so hard? Isn't courageous effort a virtue required of a serious yogi? Isn't staying up all day and night with as little sleep as possible the path in and of itself? On this last question, I have had some teachers tell me to rest as much as possible, and I have had others tell me not to rest at all. What the heck!? Who am I to follow? I clearly don't get what the path is yet....

OK, that was a bit of a rant, but I am inspired by triple think to voice some deep questions I have wrestled with.

Thanks everybody for everything.

hi Wittgenstein,

Nice book btw.
Ok, lets do this, by the book, so to speak.

So to begin with we can rule out an objective universe because as we know from either one or fifty or however many philosophy problems we are as hard wired as a brain in a bucket and can never pin down the answer to this one by turning the senses outward. Darn it all.
Moving on.

Does not knowing anything ever about an objective universe in this way then mean we have to accept that we are all doomed to being permanently solipsistic?

Before we solve that one I'm just going to go and actually enjoy a couple of things... sweet, ok, I'm back.

What if we turn the senses inward...

"Ooooooooooooooooohhhhh, Ooo Ooo Ooo, I know, I know, I know...!!!"

"Yes, you have something to say", says Mr. Wittgenstein.

"Yes, I think I do,", I says to him, "and it is 'by the book' as well, your book."

All right then, so here it is:

If you turn the senses inwards...
All the way to the end...
until the final sense...
the percipience sense...

you can objectify all of that
all the way in
until you cannot
and you can not objectify the percipience or the emptiness of that whole universe when all of that is gone.

So there is ONLY 2 distinct items remaining, in this inside universe that are undefined as either objective, subjective, both or neither.

All of the rest of the 'inside of nathan universe' can at a minimum be objectified. So the inside of nathan can be objectified
which makes all of that an entirely objective universe so far.

The one item, void, is unknowable and therefore indefinable entirely and not inside that universe anyways and therefore moot.

The other item percipience, is the quality that is objectifying all of the other qualities and conditions within the objectified universe of nathan. Now it can be shown that it cannot objectify itself, but it can be shown that it can and does objectify
all of the others so it is "the objector" (cool huh, I should email Angel Fire "it's the objector, objector, objector...." hee hee)

So is the objector then subjective? Hmmm, it kind of looks sort of that way-ish but to even try to label it that way we are somehow labeling it objectively by reasoning which is a compounded mental labeling or symbolizing function which is also a kind of 'objector with benefits' so even then, no, not subjective. So....

Yes!

Eureaka!

Yes, there is at least one objective universe.

Hi, pleased to meet you.
[Edit - Whoops, forgot the rest of the math. We did the first half where I demonstrated that we could, in fact, objectify the entire universe within (internally) and that we could not consider any of it as subjective or subject. Therefore, based on this calculus, we can by extrapolation conclude, that regardless of whether or not the bucket, everything else (externally) which the brain is wired into, whether that is big or bigger than that, it must therefore also be objectified to be known at all. As that is all we can do to know any of that, indeed to know at all or to know anything, and we can not know it in any other way, it is only and all objective. Therefore in conclusion, it is all either objective, or not known, or not existing at all.]

Well, kitty was purring like a well tuned BMW. I must have superpowers, I mean, just look at this edit, this was a real agitated female canine to pin down, how did I do it? ; }

hi Be Free Now

Yeah, I'm into digging it some more too, and I have some Saturday left to dig it. Nice to virtually meet you to, btw.

Ok, so if anyone cares to check back...

Thank you, to everyone else as well. You've all been playing this thread like a violin as well because, especially with the enforced rationality and reasoning, and the be nice policy, this has all been a real good thing so far.

Ok, looking just lately back. I was pinned in the corner and forced to do the math on the subjective/objective thingie.

I think I have done the math and I, we,... scratch all of that... it has solved for X - that it is all only and all objective, all the way in, internally, and therefore, and by extension, externally, all the way out. I think the math proofs this. But lets check it and really check it good because, could be a missing variable or something I overlooked because, even on the inside, it is a machine or ball of string or whatever that is really complicated.

So this is why, if it all comes down on my head somewhere down the road...
if we must name this compounded 'thoughts object'

I would prefer

Triplethink's Theorem
or some such
as opposed to
Nathan's Law
or something like that. just my 2 cents

Anyways, so I guess by this logic, that's pretty much the theory done.

which would look like

Objector + Internal Objects + External Objects + No Objects = Objective Universe

or some such.

Which works for me.

Which helps with the other problem too, because that is all then simply a technology or an applied science, or some such, right?

So the theorem has it that it is all 'objective' but the 'machine/technology' was 'programmed' from early on to accept a lot of 'bad code' or 'crappy programs' which produced 'garbage output' or 'subjective processes' or 'useless products'.

So then, this, these bad products and the bad programs would be the difference between any kind of 1234 noble being and a "Saintly Noble Being" by the '10 fetter model'.

If I, which is - It + malfunction(s) = X - is one of the 1234 noble beings, lets be generous (,maybe too much because it could also be 0,) and go with 3...

if we propose that X = 3 + malfunction(s) for now...
then a 4 + ten fetter-er = 3 - malfunction(s) + 1.

So, even though we haven't identified 'malfunction(s)' we have at least identified the problem(s) remaining to be solved to make up the difference.

Perhaps we can define those and give that a label.

I'm just spit-balling this again, off the cuff, as is not unusual, so all of this is simply on the blackboard or whiteboard of my mind, or virtually posted on here, where all of our objectors can get at it.

So, I am hopeful that this could lead to good things, like isolating all of the bad code, writing good code, and replacing the bad code, and presto, reliably good machine(s).

If we accept that there are some 4s around, maybe we should ask them to get their notebooks out and work on this.

This essay by Kenneth Folk might be relevant to the "What is an arahant?" question:
Here

RIght, well, time will tell who the cartoons are. By Kenneth's logic, becoming a cartoon is what I am after. So, Pixar, and the Big Times, get ready, here we come!

See you in the Color Funnies
next week
bu dah buh dah buh da, still that's not all of note, Folk.

-beep beep beep

This is a couple of blurbs from Empty Cloud's autobiography, which can be read in full (or part) here:

56th year:
...The river was rising and I wanted to cross it but the
boatman asked me for six coins; as I was penniless, the boat left
without me. Walking on, I suddenly slipped and fell into the water
and thus bobbed on the current for one day and night until I
drifted to Cai-shi Jetty, where a fisherman caught me in his nets
by chance. As I wore a monk’s robe, he called a monk from Bao-ji
Temple who recognized me, as we had previously stayed together
at the Jin-shan Monastery. He was frightened for my life and
exclaimed, ‘This is Master De-qing!’ (i.e. Xu-yun, ordained as Deqing).
I was subsequently carried to the temple where I was
revived. As a result of the battering which I had received in the
swift current, I bled from the mouth, nose, anus and genital
organ. After a few days’ stay at Bao-ji Temple, I went on to the
Gao-min Monastery. When I saw the director of duties
(karmadana) there, he saw that I looked pale and thin, and asked
if I was well. I replied that I was not. I then called on Abbot Yuelang who,
after inquiring about Mount Jiu-hua where I had been,
immediately asked me to take up a temporary post at the
forthcoming meditation-weeks. I politely declined his request,
saying nothing about my fall in the water, asking only that I be
allowed to attend the meditation meeting. According to Gao-min
Monastery’s rules of discipline, to reject a post given by the Abbot
was regarded as an affront to the whole monastic community.
Thus, I was found to be an offender and punished by being beaten
with a wooden ruler. While I willingly accepted this punishment,
it did aggravate my illness. I bled continuously and also passed
drops of seminal fluid in my urine. Waiting for my end, I sat firmly
in the meditation hall day and night with increasing zeal.
In the pure single-mindedness of my meditation, I forgot all about my
body and twenty days later, my illness vanished completely.
When the Abbot of Cai-shi Jetty came with an offering of
garments for the assembly, he was reassured and delighted to see
that my appearance was radiant. He then spoke of my fall into the
water and all the monks held me in great esteem. I was thus
spared the trouble of working in the hall and could continue my
meditation.

Henceforth, with all my thoughts brought to an abrupt halt, my
practice took effect throughout day and night.
My steps were as swift as if I were flying in the air. One evening after the set
meditation period, I opened my eyes and suddenly perceived a
great brightness similar to broad daylight wherein everything
inside and outside the monastery was discernible to me.
Through the wall, I saw the monk in charge of lamps and incense
urinating outside, the guest-monk in the latrine, and far away,
boats plying on the river with the trees on both its banks - all were
clearly seen; it was just the third watch of the night when this
happened. The next morning, I asked the incense-monk and
guest-monk about this and both confirmed what I had seen the
previous night. Knowing that this experience was only a
temporary state I had attained, I did not pay undue regard to its
strangeness. In the twelfth month during the third night of the
eighth week set for training, an attendant came to fill our cups
with tea after the meditation session ended. The boiling liquid
accidentally splashed over my hand and I dropped the cup which
fell to the ground and shattered with a loud report;
instantaneously I cut off my last doubt about the Mind-root and
rejoiced at the realization of my cherished aim.
I then thought of the time when I left home, and of the time during which I had
lived a wanderer’s life, my illness in the hut on the banks of the
Yellow River, and the difficult questions put to me by the layman
(Wen-ji, who saved me).

What would Wen-ji have said if I had kicked over his boiler and
stove at the time? If I had not fallen into the water and been
gravely ill, and if I had not remained indifferent to both favorable
and adverse situations, I would have passed another life aimlessly
and this experience would not have happened today. I then
chanted the following gatha:

A cup fell to the ground
With a sound clearly heard.
As space was pulverized
The mad mind came to a stop.

I also chanted a further gatha:
When the hand released its hold, the cup fell and was shattered.
’Tis hard to talk when the family breaks up or someone dies;
Spring comes with fragrant flowers blossoming everywhere,
Mountains, rivers and the great earth are but the Tathagata.

...

120th year:
...
‘I myself do not know how long I shall live and my birthday is still
far off. However, the Upasaka Wu Xing-zai has expressed a desire
to send me birthday scrolls and I have thanked him, requesting
him not to do so. My former karma has caused my present life to
be full of troubles. I am like a candle in the wind and have
achieved nothing; when I think of this I am ashamed of my empty
reputation. A century of worldly troubles is like a dream and an
illusion and is not worth any attachment. Moreover, since birth
leads to death, a wise man should be on the alert and set his mind
on the Dao, like one who loses no time to save his burning head.
How can I indulge in following a worldly custom? I thank you for
your kindness from the bottom of my heart but sincerely regret
that I am unable to accept your present. I still grieve over the
untimely death of my mother and would request that you stop
this unprofitable plan to celebrate my birthday in order not to
aggravate my sins.’
...

First Gatha
Taking pity upon ants a shrimp jumps not into the water;
To benefit watery beings throw my ashes in the river.
If they accept this last offering of my body,
I hope they will win Bodhi and labor for salvation.

Second Gatha
I urge my Dharma friends to think
Deeply and with care about
The karma of birth and death
As silkworms spin their cocoons.
Endless desires and thoughts
Increase all trouble and suffering.
If you would escape from this,
First practice almsgiving and the threefold study
Of wisdom, meditation, discipline,
Then hold firm the four correct thoughts. [The four correct thoughts: (1) That the body is impure; (2) That suffering comes from sensation; (3) That mind is impermanent; (4) That there is no ego-self in phenomena.]
Suddenly you awaken and perceive
Clearly that all is like dew and lightning.
You realize that in the absolute
Myriads of things have the same substance.
The created and the uncreated
Are like water and its waves.

Third Gatha
Alas, in my declining years
My debt of gratitude is still unpaid [to his parents, I assume].
As my debt is still outstanding,
Shallow is my wisdom and yet deep my karma.
I blush at my failure (in my Dharma practice),
At my stupidity while staying on Yun-ju.
Like one who still clings to words when he recites the sutras.
I am ashamed to meet the World-Honored One
And the assembly that is still gathered on Vulture’s Peak.
It is now your duty to protect the Dharma,
For you are now Wei-tuo in this age reborn
To revive the true tradition of Vaisali
Which reveals the oneness of self and others.
Look up to and respect Vimalakirti,
A rock that in midstream ever stands unmoved,
One on whose words men for deliverance rely.
They endure endless ills in this Dharma-ending age
In which scarce are they who on Truth rely.
I am involved in trouble since my reputation is not true;
You should, therefore, awaken
And from the right path, no longer stray.
Rejoice to hear of the Buddha’s land
And with it strive to be in tune.
These last words are left behind
To reveal my inmost thought.

What wonderous humility and compassion and honesty!

No doubt. I wonder if Kenneth has finished editing out all of the parts of all of the books over the last 2500 years that don't fit into the developmental model yet? Sorry, I shouldn't tease Folk's especially if I am partly a cartoon. But wait, cartoons do that don't they, oh, this is so confusing..."But I just want to be a REAL Cartoon boy, Papa Geppetto!"

And then late one night the little fairies come with their majic dust and suddenly...

Thanks for this from history, I really like the stories from the Old China, before they killed most all the birds and cartoons.

pinocchiothunk

Y'know, I was feeling uneasy about teasing Ken even while I was doing it, but I will confess too that I feel a little 'violated' by the developmental model and so it is kind of self-defense, which also makes me uneasy... but I just kept feeling worse and worse...

So, with all due respect for all your good works and your good not-self Kenneth, I sincerely apologize.

Whew, why do I feel better now?

Could it be It's conscience? Could be. Probably. Seems like a normal human function.

What could have it in overdrive like that?

Should I beat it down, until It is a psychopath? (O+malfunctioning or erratic or - polarized moral compass?) Huh, no, that won't work, and it wouldn't describe any of us who care in the slightest for the It-niverse. Hmmmm. Maybe, with a moral compass, the developmental model would work and all of history and the present would not have to be revised...

ten thousand suffering christs, this is a tough one
gonna thunk on it lots more

trip

This is the "Conclusion of the Life-Story in Prose" in Shabkar's autobiography, The Life of Shabkar: The Autobiography of a Tibetan Yogin (All text in brackets are added research material or clarification or definitions. I apologize for any misinformation which may be in these brackets. I apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes, which I may have overlooked.) A small sample of the book can be found here

By the power of merit accumulated in the past, in this life, I obtained a sound human body endowed with all the freedoms and favorable conditions. From childhood until now, touching my head to the dust of their feet, I have attended hundreds of spiritual teachers. From them I received time and again many vast and profound instructions uniting sutra and tantra.

I have done spiritual practice in hundreds of mountain retreats, from the White Snows of Kailash in Upper Tibet, to The Heart of the Lake, Tsonying Mahadeva, in Lower Dokham. I have also been to hundreds of villages and monasteries, benefiting as much as possible the teachings and all beings.

From the ages of twenty-one to forty I kept unbroken the precept of not eating after noon. I did the fasting practice more than three hundred times. I recited one million times the hundred-syllable mantra and the mani [short for the mantra of Avalokiteśvara, Om mani padme hum] ten million times, as well as many other mantras and prayers. From the ages of twenty to thirty I mainly practiced to perfect myself, and from the ages of thirty to fifty I worked mainly for the good of others.

I spent altogether nine years in the Three Provinces of Ngari in western Tibet, in the Four Districts of U-Tsang in central Tibet, and in the Three Heights of Dokham in eastern Tibet, tirelessly working for beings.

I always kept purely the three vows. Giving up meat, garlic, onions, and tobacco, I lived on the three whites [curd or yoghurt,
milk, butter (I think)] and the three sweets [molasses, sugar, and honey], and on tea, butter, and tsampa [roasted barley flour]. Wherever I went in Upper, Middle, and Lower Tibet, I told everyone there, men and women:

"There is no certainty as to when we will die. It may well happen tonight, tomorrow, or the day after. You must consider carefully the law of karma, cause and effect. If, as someone who has committed many negative deeds, you haven't taken this law into account and die suddenly, you will be reborn in the hell realm, while those who have practiced virtue will be reborn in the higher realms; therefore you must beware of negative actions and exert yourself in virtuous ones.

"Above all, you must constantly train your mind to be loving, compassionate, and filled with Bodhicitta. You must give up eating meat, for it is very wrong to eat the flesh of our parent sentient beings. If you are unable to give up eating meat, only take meat under the three permissive conditions, and by no means should you accept meat of an animal that has been killed for you.

"Keeping pure vows and samayas [a set of vows or precepts given to initiates of an esoteric Vajrayana Buddhist order as part of the abhiṣeka (empowerment or initiation) ceremony that creates a bond between the guru and disciple], you should study, reflect and meditate in a proper way upon the cast and profound teachings in both sutra and tantra.

After earnestly teaching in Upper, Middle, and Lower Tibet, I had over one hundred great learned and accomplished disciples, who were mindful of the law of cause and effect, maintained pure discipline, and had good hearts; who realized the natural state; who had thoroughly assimilated the practices of the development and completion stages and had visions of their yidam [a fully enlightened being who is the focus of personal meditation, during a retreat or for life]; and who were aware of the happiness and the suffering, the good and bad qualities of others, and were thus able to benefit both the Dharma and all beings.

I had over three hundred disciples who were practitioners who trained in the Bodhicitta practice of cherishing others more than themselves, were filled with compassion, and never ate meat.

I had one thousand eight hundred disciples--monks, nuns, and hermits--who, coming from all directions and all lands, lived in the mountains, kept pure vows and samayas, and gave up all concern for the affairs of this life.

Finally, I had countless disciples who were monks and nuns dwelling in monasteries, disciples who worked hard at making offerings, prostrations, circumambulations, prayers and recitations; village ngakpas [non-monastic practitioner] who pracitced recitation and meditation upon the yidam deities; and laymen and laywomen who took temporary vows of fasting, and recited the mani.

I was fortunate enough to be able to ransom the lives and set free tens and hundreds of thousands of goats, sheep, yaks, birds, and other wild animals, and to save over five hundred people who were on the verge of death--beggars, pilgrims, people coming from afar, people who had long been sick, condemned prisoners, and people who had been tring to kill each other in feuds.

Having returned to Domey, using spiritual and worldly skillful means, along with wealth, I settled eighteen great feuds, in which many people had been killed, thus putting a halt to the line of those waiting to enter the hells.

In brief, directly and indirectly I was able to bring vast benefit to the Dharma and sentient beings.

Wherever I worked for others, I would mentally call for the descent of auspiciousness on all the places I saw; call for a rain of blessings over all the mountain retreats I saw; consecrate all the sacred objects I saw; give empowerment to all the people I saw, and pray for all those who had died.

I felt loving-kindness when seeing someone bereft of happiness, compassion when seeing someone suffering, joy when seeing someone happy and free of suffering, and evenness who seeing someone free of attachment and hatred. While traveling I would continually repeat:

May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness;
May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering,
May all beings never be parted from the happiness free from suffering,
May all beings remain in the evenness free from attachment and aversion.

To conclude every action done in accordance with the Dharma, I would say prayers dedicating all merit, so that the precious teachings of the Buddha--the source of all temporal benefit and ultimate happiness--would spread vastly, and that in this way the sun of happiness and fulfillment would shine on sentient beings. I prayed that, by the power of my dedication, in all lands and particularly in the places I was visiting, the rain would be timely, crops good, and cattle prosperous, that diseases of men and beasts cease, that life span and merit would increase, that everyone might enjoy happiness and comfort in this life and the next, and that, ultimately, metting in a Buddhafield we would all have the good fortune to attain Buddhahood together.


Wow, what an amazing spirit. May I develop 1/100th of this man's love and compassion. Just typing this out has made me infused a sublime joy in the mind.

Time for bed. May all beings everywhere at all times be happy, peaceful, and liberated!

Thanks for these data entry efforts Be Free Now. We really need to alert the machine (It-niverse) to know that it can be, not only much wiser about the nuts and bolts, but also much wiser about the greater than ordinarily(?) or previously estimated perceptible value of all the autonomous and animate parts. The It-niverse requires this data for and in all those moving parts ASAP. Or it is going to roll over and grind up all of them sooner rather than later. It's looking sooner to this It-Bit, looking sooner all the time, not so good for the It-niverse.

"Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman (wise and saintly[respectful of all life in all ways at all times?]) through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed."

— Ud 1.10

pleasant animations
-triplethinka

[hi again
Rather than waste another post on it, I thought I would recycle this one. Sponge Bob and I had a long talk about what it is like to be empty and cartoon-like. We laughed our three fingered hands off, a few times, almost lost a thumb. After a while we settled down enough to maybe have this sorted out for you good viewers back home.

So, based on the usual 01234 wet or dry or neutral, yet typically more to the dryish side developmental model, we figured, we would call this the soaking wet and laughing model or something. Bob is all wet about this really. So, he is more help with being all wet than seeing anything 'as it is'.

Anyways.

So I would be willing to cop to something like an estimated 1.5+W to 2.5+W attainment, I guess. If that will make anyone/everyone happy. I am shooting for the 4+W or 4 Neutral State or Configuration if that helps anyone get my bearings. Bear in mind that I could be just another 0 who is almost all wet like Bob so there is my disclaimer as well.

Gonna go watch Dr. Who with Bob now.

balms away
triplethink]


whoops tried to edit and copied the previous post, kinda silly

time to log off and see what my pal sponge bob is doin'

doot de doodley doot doot do

Towards the Further Development, Enhancement, Modification and Conceivably Perfection of Any and All
Developmental Models and Modalities respecting the Production, Degradation or Elevation and or the Attenuation and or Neutralization, and or the Surrender and Abandonment - Configurations or Orientations also known as the Enlightenment and Liberation, in whole or in part of - Percipient, Cognitive, Reflexive and Motive and thereby Autonomous and Animate Fields, and the Installation, Maintenance, Modification and Extraction of any and or all Accompanying and or Acquired, or Renounced and or Abandoned, Qualitatively Compounded Conditions, Faculties and Facilities

An open and ongoing document, which is subject to ongoing modification and revision, freely available to any and all, in any and all forms. No copyrights are necessary, pleasing nor desirable. November 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A Brief Note on the terms Mode, Modal, Model, Modality and Modal Logic
(roughly drafted and likely yet subject to much further consideration and ongoing amendment)

Mode - Any apparent form or property of a form to which may be assigned a symbol, sign, name, or logos for any perceptible and therefore conceivable quality or condition.

Modal - property, process, function, means, manner, way or function of a mode

Model - any compound of such qualities and conditions in various characteristic forms and any properties thereof.

Modality - that which is dependent upon or subject to any mode or modal property, etc.

Modal Logic - a form of logic which distinguishes between (logically) "necessary truths" and "contingent truths" regarding
logos and logic variously interrelated as is in the nature of Models and Modalities.]


Conscience-ness Studies

Early Findings and Prognosis

Conscience-ness Research and Studies is a nascent (newly emerging) field for research and study closely linked to Consciousness Studies, and within that field may possibly be more closely linked to Pragmatic Models of and Modalities for Developmental Enlightenment with a specific focus on any and all relevant and related moral and ethical perceptions and conceptions, together with the names and forms, and qualities conditions and any properties and functions thereof.

Early research and studies indicate the absence or presence, in a wide variety of living subjects, of any number of complex and compounded perceptive, cognitive, sensory, and motive and or reflexive energetic/radioactive functions and apparently substantial elemental phenomena, internally and externally.

Also indicated are a ways in which a great many of the same perceptive, cognitive, sensory, and motive and or reflexive energetic/radioactive functions and apparently substantial elemental phenomena are bound up and interrelated to a great many similarly interdependent, compounded, and complex moral and ethical perceptions, conceptions, qualities and conditions, and related properties and concerns within the compound minds and bodies of living and sentient beings.

While it is a new field for researchers and study, early indications are promising.

Early research in situ, in and of the related perceptual and conscious fields and active and passive qualitative conditions and conditional compounds within in the field (so to speak), demonstrate compounded mental, bodily and sensory functions capable of perceiving, cognizing, processing, facilitating and animating positive, neutral and negative perceptual, cognitive, sensory and animate perceptual, cognitive, reflexive and motive animating energetic and or radioactive phenomena; fields, faculties and functions, both within the mind/body/sense compounds and between many such subjects.

These complex compounded phenomena may have one or more of three or more typical or atypical faculties and facilities, functional and or dysfunctional and developmentally potentially modifiable configurations and orientations, any or all of which may or may not be fixed or mobile, functional or dysfunctional. Some of these appear motive and some appear reflexive.

These processes, faculties, facilities and functions often perform in an interrelated manner in still more complex interrelationships in many modalities of diverse and complex forms of perception, cognition, processing and functioning together with other passive and active faculties and functions, etc., regardless of the configurations and orientations of the perceptual, cognitive, sensory, energetic or radioactive inflows and outflows, if any; and the interrelationships between multiple living and sentient complexes capable of such internal mind/body/sensory compounding facilities, faculties, functions and forms. These living and mutable compounds can demonstrate a wide range and variety of similarly related phenomena.

The Moral Compass - Faculties, Facilities, Functions and Dysfunctions

A multi-functional and perceptually/cognitively configurable and reconfigurable sensor or sensor array within the perceptive/cognitive and or sensory/reflex/motor architectures of sentient living beings, tentatively labeled the 'moral compass' does appear demonstrable and verifiable in multiple subjects.

As with any other related perception, cognizance, processing and functioning involving Conscience-ness; the moral compass appears to be capable of demonstrating a variety of internal configurations, developments, impairments, faculties, functions and dysfunctions, etc..

The functioning of this 'moral sense' can be highly variable in many ways. It appears that it may be present or not, active or passive, positively, neutrally or negatively oriented and may or may not be linked to any number of other cognitive and sensory functions in a variety of modes of functional or dysfunctional configurations.

Known or potential forms of the compass include a neutral, positive or negative center and positive, negative and neutral orientations. The developments, functions, faculties, and processes in regards to conscience-ness are still not fully understood. More research and studies are necessary and may prove vital and even crucial to the survival of sentient life forms on planet earth now and in the future.

Study of very old documents for indications of other known data in this area regarding: cognitive, and or sensory, and or energetic/radioactive, and other animating compounds, processes, faculties and functions together with substantive and energetic or radioactive phenomena within the mind/body complex also appear to be a rich source of documented research in the past.

One mental quality, percipience/consciousness, has been isolated and it has clear links in relation to more complex and compound cognitive and sensory functions in complex living and sentient mind/body animations within the known and knowable it-niverse.

Any and all male, female, typical, atypical and or It-ale and It-ical living beings of all ages interested in this field are welcomed to participate in the ongoing research and study.

Guidelines for both are forthcoming and under development at the DhO.

Demonic (-), Divine (+) and Sagacious (0) Configurations of Fields and Faculties and Facilities which are Properties of Radiant or Energetic Fields Related to or Equivalent to Qualities or Properties of Conscience-ness Complexes

Perception, Cognition, Faculties and Functions Capable of Perceiving and Generating Motive and Reflexive Radiation

Also known as the projection and reception, sensation, perception and cognition of other projected +, -, and 0 thoughts. feelings and any other similar or related faculties and functions is a nascent (new and emerging) sub-field of Conscience-ness Studies.

All aspects of the Complex and Compounded Links to Percipience/Consciousness are up for review within existing Compounded Percipience Development Models, all qualities and conditions, present or absent, in living subjects require scrutiny for links to the known Percipience and Percipience Processing and Cognizing Complexes Faculties and Functions.

The correct placement, alignment and functioning of the 'Moral Compass' Sensor and any related energetic/ radioactive phenomena internal to the mind/body/senses complex is of interest. Related Ancient Documents and any new related studies are under review.

A request for any and all findings old and new has now been issued and will be welcomed by the

Triple-It-Male Sentient Complex

-----------------

As a supplement to any Conscience-ness Studies, this supplementary note
(open to ongoing revision and improvement in either form or content for corrections, clarity or upon thorough and methodical consideration of any demonstrably and verifiably observable new evidence and necessary alterations, amendments, deletions or additions,)
is based upon and drawn from closely related Consciousness Studies
and is or may be most beneficial and usefully applied to, any and all currently ongoing or future,
Conscience-ness Investigations.

Other similar supplements may be added as these become available.

Supplementary Information from Related Ongoing Consciousness Studies:
[Generally Potentially Subject to Revision at any time however now Well Established in some Special Cases.]

All Immaterial Qualities and Conditions and any and all related Properties of the same directly bound up together and Related to Percipient/Conscious or Cognitive Qualitative and Conditional Compounds are:

1) Impermanent - Intermittently Temporally Manifest, and in Compound Fabrication alone or together with additional Apparently Immaterial Energetic/Radiant Qualities and Conditions and these related Properties, and or Apparently Substantive Energetic/Radiant and other Elementary Material Qualities and Conditions and these related Properties may be mistaken or misperceived as Satisfactory and or Substantial, however upon investigation, no Qualities nor Conditions are either Satisfactory and or Substantial.

All Immaterial Qualities or conditions or immaterial qualities bound up together with Substantively Apparent Radiant/Energetic and or otherwise Apparently Substantive Elementary Material Qualities and Conditions have been demonstrably and verifiably determined by repeated observation on the parts of Multiple Independent Investigations by Multiple Investigators and Researchers to to be, in no small part directly in relation to the first necessary quality, to therefore be no less Impermanent and Intermittent, as a minimal provision, for so far as the first quality could ever conceivably directly know. Therefore, as a minimum, at the very least, in this sense, should no other condition known or unknown ever prove to be so, all other conditions remain knowable therefore only as;

also
2)in any sense Ongoing and Entirely Insubstantial

therefore also
3) Consistently Unsatisfactory, or in any senses, Permanent or Essential

Therefore all that we know, or to our present perceptions and conceptions might ever know, is in fact entirely without any perceivable or conceivable self, essence, core or center.

Yet in this and in these, the given and stated ways and means in fact percipient and cognitive qualities and related compounds manifest, persist and are thereby known to do so.


The Percipience Quality is the first, the primary, the vital, the basic or the fundamental quality, which if present at any given moment, is involved first and foremost in any and all of the more complex qualitative compounding of Fabricated Conscious Compounds.

It is referred to by the Buddha, in discourse, on at least one occasion (If I recall correctly) to Ananda as the Supreme Nutriment. Which I take to mean that it is the first quality necessary to sustain all other of the other dependently conditioned qualities which together might be bound up together in the fabrication of the mind and all other additional acquisitions which together compose a being, and such being and becoming (a process also referred by the same speaker, for the first time in known and recorded history as kamma/karma making).

This has been confirmed repeatedly to be known and seen to be so, directly by very many independent investigators, by and for themselves, as must be so. It has been repeatedly and consistently reported to be thus, by all who have rightly done so for themselves and then so spoken.

This, the percipient quality or condition is, by the same means, also known to be, in a sense, the quality or condition most directly proximate to the Void.

It can be variously observed and or deduced that the Percipience Quality is singular and that also proximate in the form of a two factored and fabricated compound it is also most proximate to the Nothingness Quality.

It can also be variously observed and or deduced that the Percipience Quality has the property of Perceiving/Cognizing/Recognizing/Knowing and is the Quality which in more complex cognitive compounds is most primary in Perception/Cognition - the recognition and subsequent assigning of any symbol, sign or logos to any Quality, Condition, Compounds, Properties, Forms, Faculties, Facilities, Functions and so forth.

The Percipience Quality in conjunction with others when cognition of the Void occurs may assign one or more of three signs to the Void and one sign to cognition of the Nothingness Quality or percipience and cognition of 'No other discernible objects' in relation to Percipience.

It would appear that the Nothingness Quality has many functional roles in more complex qualitative compounds compounds. It appears that it serves to mask or exclude Perception of some objects so that Percipience may more fully Perceive and Cognize other Specific Qualities and Conditions.

The next most proximate Qualities to be compounded together with Percipience and Nothingness (No Perceived Object-ness) are the Qualities of Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Space which are vital and fundamental to the Perception within the accompanying Fields which are Properties of the two further Qualities in any Compounded Consciousness.

These Qualities and Conditions together with others in multiple configurations together appear to Form or Fabricate many diverse kinds and types of Consciousness Compounds together with their accompanying Qualities, Conditions, Properties, Faculties and Facilities in any and all known and or knowable Apparent, Fabricated and Compounded Living, Perceiving, Cognizing, Facultied and Facilitated Animate Immaterial, Energetic/Radiant Material or Material Beings.

Update 11/24/13

Very recent moments of and atypical and characteristically yet prominent dukkha (-) conditions; predominantly four modal elemental, apparently substantive or 'so called' material conditions have afforded an opening to investigate closely the arising of inflowing defilements and effluent outflows. Related Insights, Knowledge and Understanding corroborates past findings thus far regarding production, maintenance, reduction and extinction of these and related charged field inflows and outflows.

Further investigation and study confirms the existing Field Flow Modeling efforts. Investigation is ongoing. Supplemental Documentation to follow at a later date.

Documentation will be forthcoming when conditions are more suitable for the composition, presentation and ongoing refinement of this and any reasonably well known Dukkha (-) or Sukkha (+) Field Flow Effects or Affects and any possible correlates and properties, etc.of the same or similar flow modes and models.

Noteworthy Revisions to Posts 4 and 5, originally posted on 11/16/13 have as of now been noted and clearly posted by triplethink.

These amendments have been made, entirely and solely by triplethink, on 11/25/13.

These shall henceforth remain in place 'as is' unless otherwise similarly noted and clearly posted at some time in the future, also by triplethink. So far as triplethink, for its/his part can or will do anything about any of this.


Considerable revisions and additions have been made to my initial posts, numbers four and five, in this thread which are amendments entirely of my own origin and fabrication, so far as this thread is concerned.

I encourage anyone with an interest in the related considerations or concerns to review these more recent changes.

Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, concern, and any further expression in reflection (in future, in this or any other thread of my origin and fabrication) upon these, strictly speaking as stated, my own considerations and concerns, either those initially or subsequently noted or related, be they shared by any others or not, in any similar or any other sense.

yours truly,
remains to be seen

Post 95 from triplethink initiated 11/28/13

This 'virtual' internet byte 'space', is reserved for;

- a tentative or emergent thesis regarding:

A Structural Model of Perception and Cognition


The Structural Model of Perception/Cognition

Otherwise more commonly known as 'the knower', et al.


The Qualities and Properties (or Conditions and Functions) of this or any such Model (or structure), and any such Modes and Modalities (or Properties and Functions) of Perception and Cognition (Perceiving and Knowing) and/or Perception Cognition and Cogitation (and or Recognition or Understanding)

Otherwise more commonly known as 'the knowable', et al.


Beginning within a consideration of:

Percepts or Perceptions and Cognitions of Immaterial Qualities or

Properties of Hard Jhanic Conditions via Purified Properties of Insight within the Immaterial Realms

Or more commonly known as 'the knowable' with regards to all such Immaterial structures and functions when such relatively 'simplified' Conditions (or structures and functions) are observable via perception and cognition.
__________

[These observations and conclusions will be presented AS IF these are, simply put, true and correct. The contemporary semantics and specific words and the implied meanings are all problematic in one respect or another and it will take time to locate the most appropriate assignments.


With this and other considerations in mind this thesis is not currently intended to imply that these are Absolutely True, Accurate or Entirely Correct and or Complete Symbols for most suitably representing the Known Qualities and Properties.

Merely that, as a presentation of a well investigated and well considered working theory or thesis, these statements and all that follow thereby and therefrom are, to the knowledge of the author, "a given" and to his knowledge, are reliable and accurate, and therefore to his knowledge in every sense thus far irrefutable.


MOST IMPORTANTLY
Such knowledge and understanding as this should never be dogmatically accepted nor imposed upon another when either party is in a condition of ignorance and or delusion of any kind.

Also
Any effective demonstration of these 'facts' and any verification or refutation of the same will have to be made by individually entangled quantum perceptual and cognitive fields, therefore 'one to one', internally, or individually and personally. Therefore any significant Proofing or Disproof of this Thesis will allways require at least one Dedicated and Capable Individual capable of Purified Concentration and Insight within the context of the Appropriate Internal Conditions.

Ok?

This said, this author welcomes all theoretical or actual investigations and observations to the contrary or in any ways different or otherwise be likewise presented in this thread in any form at any time in order to further examine, review or in any way or ways otherwise improve on these same modeling efforts or any other similar efforts.

Also, any discussion, conversation, any reasonable or rational criticism and well documented and or experienced debate is all welcome. : ) ]


Introduction

this is a very temporary note and all of this is under revision, expect this to be quite different in about 12 hours from now 10:00 pm mst;

This thesis will carefully examine the structure and nature of what is commonly referred to as 'consciousness'

The best way to consider the authors considerations regarding the nature of consciousness is that it is;

- like or very like a 'quantum field effect'

- which is a condition or quality of any highly complex assembly of compounds;

those typical of complex organic and sentient compounding given considerable scientific consideration to date can be seen in a variety of ways to be

quantum or non-quantum field effects and entanglements

which are elementally atomic, and in relation to these conditions;

physical,

chemical and

organic sentient complexes.
aka
animate living and percipient beings.

Using an internal investigatory process consciousness may examine its own nature by a functional complex of proceedures commonly known as

samatha-vipassana or a process of

developmental enlightenment,

these and other similar investigations observations,

be these on record in the past or known to be made currently

are always undertaken and the following may only be demonstrated and verified

internally and directly

any confirmations and confidence cognitively formed within sentient immaterial fields

by repetition by multiple investigations and may therefore only similarly be consistently verified by the same methodology.

There are, to date, no other known modes of study and research in these specific respects.


Perception

There is much to be considered about perception, and this portion of text will take time to fabricate.

The primary reference material is the Pali Tipitaka and the Form of this text will be the 21st Century English Creole with a great reliance on the sematics employed by various fields such as semantics, linguistics, western philosophy and psychology and various scientific and technical terminology.

This thesis is not intended to prove or disprove the differences or particularities of Quantum Field Effects within animate or inanimate compounds. The quantum field properties and effects proper are considered a subject of Theoretical or Applied Quantum Physics. These effects as investigated in any other way than those described in this thesis as directly and internally within a given compound field are considered to be currently a subject of Neuroscience.

Perception - As Condition - The first fire, the fine material fire condition with a quality that burns, or clings to and names in the mode of Knowing or Cognition.

As a Function it is Fully Concentrated Insight and its Properties its Primary Property is to Name.

As a Fine Material Realm it is known as Neither perception nor Non Perception.

The second Samsaric Condition always required in any further compounding of Qualities and conditions within more complex compounds in order for Percipience to Cognize is the Condition of

Negation

Negation is a condition of Percipience together with the Quality of the Percept of Nothing with the Functional Effect of Occulting or Obscuring in whole or in part

Its Property is to Obscure or Mask Any or Many Specific or All other Quality(ies) or Condition(ies), et all

from Percipience.

Typically the primary role of Negation is to Mask Percipience from Cognition.

This is why Percipience cannot become Cognizant of Percipience within more complex conditional compounds.

The singular quality of Percipience without two or more other Qualities is not considered a compound but as a single Quality.

As A single Quality Percipience is incapable of the Function of Cognition or Symbolic Representation or the assignment of a Name.




Further details to follow shortly, and ongoing.

remains and regards
- triplethink

All of the above Posted 11/28/13

Hi triple think and Beoman

have enjoyed reading the exchanges and a question about Triplethink's Theorem,

I imagine that turning the senses inward would be similar to walking into the box and someone turns out the lights and suddenly you imagine your in another universe/dimesion, the lights come on and your back again. These senses that you can turn around could get stuck if the wind changed. If you try to discern this internal/external boundary I don't imagine that you will find one that is not fabricated.

Beoman has often raised this question about the objective world in comparison between buddhism and actualism. I take the objective world to mean as existing independent of the mind/perception/counsciousness. Hard one to prove as you pointed out above. I would be interested to read beomans reasons for his belief.

Looking forward to your answer to Chucks question if you get the time.

As this is the pleasant thread (at least I hope it is) and I don't know what feeling you get from these plain words on a screen I will have a go at making it pleasant ......

sorry cant seem to work out how to post a picture of justin bieber, seems a lot of people find him pleasant

just have to go with the luv and kisses

enjoy
Jeff

hi Jeff

Yeah, the void is the tough one, given the conditional is where the pain is and that it certainly appears sukkha in relation, even by sign, it must be sweeter than all of the other compounds. However the issue of percipience as a property of the void is typically said to be unspeakable in the Pali Canon and considered material only a Buddha can address. Given the last Wheel Turning Monarch didn't even make it to 30 years of age, the odds of a Buddha since are taken to be zero ongoing unless we have a global sea change. No outgoing tide I can see. So, best to not speak to it unless you perceive and conceive you are a Buddha. If anyone is a Buddha, it would be to get their take on it. If anyone has been in contact, with anyone known to be even so much as "Perfectly both Such and Thus", please let me know.

In the resting state, percipience is inoperative, therefore there is no other perceptible universe, beyond this universe. Now given that, this universe perceived directly as a multiverse is a "known" in my case and considered "Obvious."

I think I will bow out on this one until I can come down on the affirmative in relation to the Perfect 4 Conditions which I consider Perfectly Such and Thus is doable for a full week. So, if someone can abide in NS for even so much as lets say half a day, it would be great to hear from them on this. I'm not going to say I could rest like that for more than even a few minutes so, I have a long way to go on 'attaining' that kind of data. I work to a high bar on 'certainties' 100%, so, no ruling from me on it. Sorry man.

Hmmm. My bits on the multiverse simply vanished on me. For now I am going to take that to be operator error on my part and while it may be more evidence I don't find it compelling. In any case, I think I have plenty of multiverse related first hand, enough to count that as a certainty. It is all objectively maddening to get into either multiverse or time travellish stuff first hand, so if you must experiment best to stick with the telekinetic and telepathic stuff. If that doesn't totally put you into a straight jacket, then you may be ready to tackle the big times, space/time wise. My advice on that. p.s. Yes it is all the same and as Such objective and objectifiable.

This remains a mathematical theorem so far as the mathematical and physical science community is concerned. However both groups are variably optimistic. I think and feel that they should remain optimistic in these respects however they will need to see the more relevant data before these fields of study reorient attention appropriately.

Anything anyone might consider agreeable (pleasant) can go here, unpleasant has been re-directed to Tripleslam.
There's some bumps and scrapes up to about post 50 or so, so fair warning and hindsight as always 20/20.
Seems 5/5 scaning forward at this point, so onwards and upwards...
thx

Here's what I have so far on Chuck's Question a couple posts hence... Post 99

Thanks for the postage.

-triplekathunkishly speaking

Jeff, I had a question from a post you posted on Dho, somewhere and sometime, so if everyone could please forgive me or give me a mulligan for barging in on this thread. Anyway, you had described a phenomoenon and asked if anyone had experienced it, it did not look as though you received an answer.

Anway here is what I experienced, see if this is close, It is like , say when you are meditating or were falling asleep somewhere and you jolt up, there is the feeling that arises like a shift or something, I almost want to describe there is ankother type of inner sensory feel too it. At first, I just wrote it off thinking it was waking up related to sloth and torpor, but then it happened with full awakefulness (in meditation), a couple of times. It has also happened at the occurence of realization of types of what seem to be memories, but they couldn't have been my memories because what I saw firsthand never happened.

I hope you remember what I am talking about, and again many apologies for interrupting.

Bryan

triplethunk Post 99 triplethink 11/28-29/13 Note on Void Percepts and Note on Idhhi

hi Chuck

So, far, not having persisted long enough in the nirodha, likely no more than 2-3 minutes, if not under a minute generally, at this point I am willing to accept the thinking that nothing can be said about this short of working towards a conscious resting state approaching that of the/a Buddha. For very many years I had felt that some aspect of perception existed within the resting state, however, short of this or any similar 'Such' (conditional) statements by the Buddha personally, any that might be "Such (condtional) statements about the 'Thus' aka void aka conditional resting state, I take it that those seeming perceptions were actually the more likely a perception of the sign of the void taken up as an object in the Realm of Infinite Perception. The Buddha's presentation varies from structural to functional and without considerable scholarly-ish research I would not have a proper survey of the Pali on this question. I don't think even a comment from a great Disciple (perfected 4 + at minimum 3 more attainments would qualify to comment) is in the existing records. Care to comment further? What's your thinking on this one Chuck?

For the time being I will go with perceptually, "it very much feels this way", yet cognitively I lean towards one of the signs for the void as replacing infinite consciousness and effectively becoming a 9 th immaterial Jhana, perhaps fits one of Kenneth's paradigms or Daniel. Not sure, haven't moved on into the heterodox stuff yet, baby steps...

Want me to put this on the list next time I pull out all the baskets and jump in for a year? I would be happy to do so. Let me know else where sometime.
thx
triplethink

A Brief Note on Iddhi

I had a thought on iddhi work. Iddhi questions come up a lot, probably anything functional in detail will come up for more detailed scrutiny in the ops thread at some point. Should a competent group determine to focus on this, that and Such.

In any case I will post a brief note on this here in case someone is scanning for such details.

I would say the most accomplished iddhi work I do now is equatable to method acting which is to say Projected Self Rule Appearances, which others who buy into this as a given are delusional in persisting in. However, most are, so simply as the most expedient form of self defense I have found it is more often than not most appropriate to give people the minimum of what they are expecting to encounter if they are ignorant completely or significantly delusional. This is short of projecting a treatment modality to correct any delusion or ignorance. I save that for times when it appears doable and likely successful. For the most part I simply offer the flow its minimums or a slight positive adjustment.

So, rather than buy into the Self Rule per se, I simply present an appearance which can be taken as 'normal' and 'happy' for all practical intents and purposes, to the extent possible considering the present givens, unless qualities and conditions present otherwise.

I couldn't do this kind of work initially and prefer when alone or amongst those who have known me for a long time to default to the present conditions and back into satipatthana mode or something deeper in. I had to sit down with the TV on for a few years and watch the representations the pro's present. Even post second or third splash or whatever it was everyone in high school figured I was from outer space or something. It took a while to find a girl who would even consider me as other than sexless and neuter, that was uncomfortable. Sorry kids for all the 'experiments' performed back then. I sincerely hope no one is still freaked out about anything I attempted back then today I was probably most exploratory with this between 15 and 30 and it was some craaaaazzeeeeeee shhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeit! My bad.

I think I would make a competent professional method actor, based on knowledge of the representations linked to the given qualities and conditions, should that present and appear acceptable, without any further training, and project pretty much anything quite convincingly at a camera or an audience.

Anything majical would be too much for me to bother with in that sense and probably more likely counter-indicated. Again considering how this went down for the last big time Wheel Turner. Best thing he for his own As Such sakes was float off and fade out. The rest just got him a lot of grief. Hopefully it has been instructive, and would appear to have been and be so to many extents. Thing is sometimes a little metta is good, beyond that the karuna can be heavily debilitating. But for those who have a lot to give, there is nothing to do but let them do and learn from this kind of work, and I will be the last to criticize any of the Brahmaviharas, per se. Praiszims via Nuttins 2 y'all.

I do think he was a Wheel Master who's Dominion and Authority was rejected by the Existing Asura Regime as three of the Magi from Magadhi did recognize and head west to acknowledge his arising. I can't testify as a direct witness on the three and the references are a cultural retention but it makes sense to have 3 go in context and 'represent' for the Triple Gem. So, its all obvious what is what at some point.

So, nuff said, yup, real and as always objectifiable, trickery or mastery to the initiated and Magic to the ignorant and deluded.

A subjective premise that is falsifiable or verifiable and fully objectified is completely delusional, irrational and illogical anyways, and cannot be faithfully represented, as is also obvious. So, the 'real magicians' today are, simply, those completely lost to ignorance and delusion, who are likewise only fooling themselves - the vernacular for this is "Iddhi Ots" or "Iddhi 0s" - would be good in this venue - in reference to the 01234 models.

yer'z
Fire Eating Moon Phoenix Fire Bathing Earth Dragon
-triplethink

Hi Psi,

yes I remember this post from a few years ago, it was when I worked out I had been experiencing cessation for some time, and really started to notice the cycling. At the time its wasn't as apparent what was going on. worth investigating the lead up and after.

cheers
Jeff

triplethunk Post 101 triplethink A note on Conscience-ness & Constructing the Moral Compass - Gyroscopic Operations

Been musing a lot about the form of the moral compass that keeps everything play safe outside.

Many good point outs to consider lately, thx all.

So been thinking more like a gyroscope to always keep it right.

Here's a bead for it then if you still have a mind to listen.

Think of many concentric bubbles all in one big boat.

Heading out towards the heavens somewhere and in towards nothing in particular at the center.

Pride is any pole, to always direct outward towards the largest spheres,

humility oriented all the way in, in contrast,

and one will see level(s), at all times indeed.

Looking global
being local
speaking all I know
acting out the same as always
thinkin' this is all she wrote.

easy ways,
- 3bird

More studies are needed, your results may vary,
let us know if they do.
------------------------------
Still continually directing traffic, (re)orienting the inflows and outflows local to this point, seems effective, for all kinds of vectors and radiations, this approach, and the like; so back 2 it.

Somewhere in all the too much already stuff, I was working on this in the tech talk looking for the words outside, but that all started looking highly inappropriate to the cause and not the effect I was after, so sorry about that. Another failed experiment so far, not enough abhidhamma to build it yet. Anyhow, the giantmostspecificterm-inator contraption is still on the frix too, so stuck in the any old language mode and resting up for the doctor level details n' stuff, if and when that ever comes back online. Until then, still a crummy post and under construction. Not even going to link to it from here.

Nov. 28 - 29? 2013
----------------------------------
Post 101 add Sat. after more SIT in IT

Nov. 30

Been reflecting and czeching, void, objector, reflector, time, space, ignition elements & cogitation, this U so far completely nested U fully In & Out (re: the 3D4D5... bubbles). Need to stop at that and check with all of U, U 's.

Been staring up and down the same dumb old trunk of the same old elephant sitting here in the zoo. Backed against a tree, feel very confident about the N & S of these expanding & encompassing points, check my work for your _
as any mote should do.

So, if anything It feel/think thunk some confident this much is correct about the sub nested U 's & IT ALL wherever IT ALL gets away to.

As always check your gear and get back to me w/better insights, knowledge and understanding if at all possible.

Thx for all U hip so far. Sisters and Brothers too.

Flows In/Out As Such still highly unstable but also follows trends, time will tell...upon considerable review....

encompassing and expanding re:
Notes on Such and Thus so far
-3bird

uppekkha U 2
external Bubble U's permeable no safety except accept for the upekkha. Much same flow back as inflow always usually always +++

Thank you , That was very open and honorable of you to share.

Peace