Fear is the root of All suffering

[Karl]

But then, in the Land of Points, the Pointless One was banished.

 

More likely classified as pointlessly-abled and sent to the assessment centre.

[Bud Jetsun]

Karl my friend, I appreciate your valiant, even tempered and intellectual response.  I pity those who choose to play the game of logic against you. 

 

 

This is because you do not have clear definitions for things. Logical reasoning is the only option for correctly integrating concepts dragged from the universe. ....

 

It is a tool for knowing reality nothing more...

 

The more things we can know, the greater becomes the requirement for ensuring that what is stored away isn't rubbish...

 

Hiding behind subjective mysticism might make you feel better, but it doesn't alter what is happening in the world. Pulling a sheet over the head might hide the world from you, but it won't stop a bullet...

 

 

One can't escape the confines of whatever belief set they have created as boundaries of possibility in reality without realization. 

 

In logic games, you can always take one step further (like a child asking "why?" repeatedly), and in the process construct a new layer of delusion to stack into the ever-growing model.   This is why we live in a world where many books of philosophy and religion also carry the danger of serious damage to ones foot if dropped.  

 

However as an exercise that with luck may trigger  self-realization, I ask you to momentarily imagine visiting our planet at a time when no being had yet taken the effort to create the human-construct of "words".  

 

With no words, there is no pieces to play the logic game.  If your above hypothesis is true, that the logic game is the only option to interpret reality with, does it mean everything simply being in the wordless Now of perception has no reality? 

 

Even if a humble fruit-fly doesn't take the effort to become trained in the human created rules of playing the game of word-construct arrangements, he is still receiving his perceptions of Now and still operating in a reality better suited towards his purposes than we could ever understand in words as humans. 

 

If you peeled away all of a cultures history of words and meanings of arrangements of them, does one just vanish out of existence? Or does one still receive the same sense perceptions of Now while only missing the web of inherently non-Truth delusional human constructs?

 

Ultimately, no matter what labels one wishes to attach to something as profound as being in reality, only the perceptions of Now remain as real, all of the constructed aspects remain inherently subjective delusions arisen as a choice to replace perception of Now. 

 

Reality to a humans ability to know it is your sense perceptions of this moment of Now, the rest some add upon that is your own personal series of delusions.

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Brian]

The Aristotelian logician posits that Aristotelian logic is complete and all-encompassing and then requires all subsequent discussion to comply with the rules & assumptions of Aristotelian logic. It's a circular game, you see.

[Marblehead]

The Aristotelian logician posits that Aristotelian logic is complete and all-encompassing and then requires all subsequent discussion to comply with the rules & assumptions of Aristotelian logic. It's a circular game, you see.

Hehehe.  I'm so glad I'm an Anarchist and don't spend a lot of time worrying if I am playing someone else's game properly.

 

To worry about it would cause a lot of suffering.

[Karl]

The Aristotelian logician posits that Aristotelian logic is complete and all-encompassing and then requires all subsequent discussion to comply with the rules & assumptions of Aristotelian logic. It's a circular game, you see.

 

You know that isn't true don't you ?

 

The are reasoning animals and these are the rules we use already but formalised like a series of filters designed to weed out the fallacies. It's all we have, unless we fall back on intuition.

[Karl]

Karl my friend, I appreciate your valiant, even tempered and intellectual response.  I pity those who choose to play the game of logic against you. 

 

 

 

 

 

One can't escape the confines of whatever belief set they have created as boundaries of possibility in reality without realization. 

 

In logic games, you can always take one step further (like a child asking "why?" repeatedly), and in the process construct a new layer of delusion to stack into the ever-growing model.   This is why we live in a world where many books of philosophy and religion also carry the danger of serious damage to ones foot if dropped.  

 

However as an exercise that with luck may trigger  self-realization, I ask you to momentarily imagine visiting our planet at a time when no being had yet taken the effort to create the human-construct of "words".  

 

With no words, there is no pieces to play the logic game.  If your above hypothesis is true, that the logic game is the only option to interpret reality with, does it mean everything simply being in the wordless Now of perception has no reality? 

 

Even if a humble fruit-fly doesn't take the effort to become trained in the human created rules of playing the game of word-construct arrangements, he is still receiving his perceptions of Now and still operating in a reality better suited towards his purposes than we could ever understand in words as humans. 

 

If you peeled away all of a cultures history of words and meanings of arrangements of them, does one just vanish out of existence? Or does one still receive the same sense perceptions of Now while only missing the web of inherently non-Truth delusional human constructs?

 

Ultimately, no matter what labels one wishes to attach to something as profound as being in reality, only the perceptions of Now remain as real, all of the constructed aspects remain inherently subjective delusions arisen as a choice to replace perception of Now. 

 

Reality to a humans ability to know it is your sense perceptions of this moment of Now, the rest some add upon that is your own personal series of delusions.

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

And if you used logic then you would see the fallacy in that argument immediately. Funnily enough I couldn't possibly have known it had I not learned it.

 

It tells me that reasoning developed at the same time as language. It was a necessity to communicate more complex concepts beyond simple warnings.

[Bud Jetsun]

What if your object of love starts to suffer. Basically you will also need to love people who causes suffering for the ones you love and you watching it lovingly and love also yourself while doing it.

 

desire realm, form realm, formless realm all suffering..

 

 

While one chooses attachment, one will suffer his attachments.  Many other folks who are far better poets have explained why this is in perhaps every book of religion and philosophy. 

 

Fortunately, there is no rule prohibiting you from acknowledging and embracing without fear that your body and everyone elses is a fleetingly temporary loan of some energy that will crumble to dust, nobody and no-thing escapes again becoming formless energy then becoming massive again and having an infinite loop of additional cycles as part of something/one.  Universes and galaxies of galaxies only appear solid and stagnant on scales of feeble human perception limitations. 

 

It makes no difference if you accept impermanence or not, aside from choosing to suffer the delusion if one clings hard enough they somehow escape impermanence. 

 

To suffer requires the choice of a being to choose to experience suffering fear-rooted indoctrination/ignorance/delusion.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[ChiForce]

If we pursue this then it will derail this thread. I'll start a new one OK?

Hey, when Karl gets involved in a thread, the LOGICAL conclusion is that the thread will get derailed.  Is the LOGICAL outcome and the eventuality.  I bet Karl's LOGIC didn't see that LOGICAL conclusion based on the empirical facts.  Yeah, LOGIC is great only if Karl could see his logic of it of a logical conclusion.     

Edited August 15, 2015 by ChiForce

[Bud Jetsun]

And if you used logic then you would see the fallacy in that argument immediately. Funnily enough I couldn't possibly have known it had I not learned it. It tells me that reasoning developed at the same time as language. It was a necessity to communicate more complex concepts beyond simple warnings.

 

 

I have no doubt I have at least a dozen logically fallacies you have already analyzed and can blow holes through any combination of words I can type out with ease.  I watched you singlehandedly out-logic-game a large group of people, many of whom are already much better than average at playing.  You far exceed anything I can offer in your ability to highlight fallacy while cleverly not stepping in your own, and an impressively razor thin layer of delusion left compared to even most dedicated philosophers.

 

In compassion, I just want to share awareness with you somehow that the razor of logic you've skillfully wielded to shave away so many delusions is a yet remaining delusion.  You are master swordfighter who thinks his sword has become him rather than also being one of the delusions he needs to liberate himself from to get closer to approaching reality. 

 

It's an acceptance of the bounds of a system being limited to the pieces it's played with, and no amount of adding more pieces or more elaborate combinations of pieces equates reality. 

 

There is nothing to know. Reality to humans is a state of perception. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[ChiForce]

I have no doubt I have at least a dozen logically fallacies you have already analyzed and can blow holes through any combination of words I can type out with ease.  I watched you singlehandedly out-logic-game a large group of people, many of whom are already much better than average at playing.  You far exceed anything I can offer in your ability to highlight fallacy while cleverly not stepping in your own, and an impressively razor thin layer of delusion left compared to even most dedicated philosophers.

 

In compassion, I just want to share awareness with you somehow that the razor of logic you've skillfully wielded to shave away so many delusions is a yet remaining delusion.  You are master swordfighter who thinks his sword has become him rather than also being one of the delusions he needs to liberate himself from to get closer to approaching reality. 

 

It's an acceptance of the bounds of a system being limited to the pieces it's played with, and no amount of adding more pieces or more elaborate combinations of pieces equates reality. 

 

There is nothing to know. Reality to humans is a state of perception. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Hahahahaha....enabler.    You are going to make his condition worse....   

[3bob]

Bud, your pretentious variation of reasoning could be adapted and plugged into or used as a tool to dismiss everything the historic Buddha taught or said... 

[ChiForce]

Bud, your pretentious variation of reasoning could be adapted and plugged into or used as a tool to dismiss everything the historic Buddha taught or said... 

Because wisdom and insights to the nature of the mind from thousands of years of transmission are no match to <cough> Karl's logic. <cough>.  I call it "rationalization."  

[Brian]

 

You know that isn't true don't you ? The are reasoning animals and these are the rules we use already but formalised like a series of filters designed to weed out the fallacies. It's all we have, unless we fall back on intuition.

We've known Aristotelian logic to be inadequate since at least as far back as the late 17th century and, in hindsight, it is clear that Aristotle-worship did as much to slow the progress of natural philosophy as did the Church. Problem is, if you think you only have a hammer at your disposal, everything must be a nail.

[3bob]

I find Bud's variation more subtle but "rope a dope" along with all the the jabs about delusion this and delusion that which don't allow us to understand his lofty wisdom...

Edited August 15, 2015 by 3bob

[Tibetan_Ice]

You know that isn't true don't you ? The are reasoning animals and these are the rules we use already but formalised like a series of filters designed to weed out the fallacies. It's all we have, unless we fall back on intuition.

Philosophy, reasoning and logic do not explain miracles. Reasoning and logic are part of the conceptual mind and since spirituality/mysticism requires that that conceptual mind be first subdued, the role they play is akin to comments from the peanut gallery.

I don't even think that reasoning and logic are worth much even as post-miracle tools of evaluation because the mind will construct non-existant links between nonsensical events in an effort to maintain a logical reasonable understanding. The mind will fill in its own information just to maintain a cohesive rational pattern, however fictitious it is.

 

There is no logic or reasoning that can explain walking on water, passing through walls, manifesting objects, precognition, distance viewing or any siddhi for that matter. Completely useless.

 

After witnessing a miracle, the first thing that the mind screams out is denial. There has to be a logical explanation! There is nothing that is beyond reason! The mind will even go so far as to rewrite what the senses have reported in an effort to maintain its supremacy. Logic and reason are fine for manipulating objects in the physical plane but are a waste of time in spirituality and mysticism. As a matter of fact, they are hinderences, obstacles that must be overcome.

[Karl]

Philosophy, reasoning and logic do not explain miracles. Reasoning and logic are part of the conceptual mind and since spirituality/mysticism requires that that conceptual mind be first subdued, the role they play is akin to comments from the peanut gallery.

I don't even think that reasoning and logic are worth much even as post-miracle tools of evaluation because the mind will construct non-existant links between nonsensical events in an effort to maintain a logical reasonable understanding. The mind will fill in its own information just to maintain a cohesive rational pattern, however fictitious it is.

There is no logic or reasoning that can explain walking on water, passing through walls, manifesting objects, precognition, distance viewing or any siddhi for that matter. Completely useless.

After witnessing a miracle, the first thing that the mind screams out is denial. There has to be a logical explanation! There is nothing that is beyond reason! The mind will even go so far as to rewrite what the senses have reported in an effort to maintain its supremacy. Logic and reason are fine for manipulating objects in the physical plane but are a waste of time in spirituality and mysticism. As a matter of fact, they are hinderences, obstacles that must be overcome.

 

That's because you cling to mysticism. You believe in miracles and so that is what you will see. I would be no more interested to see a man walk through a wall than I would be to see a dog bark. If I want to walk through a wall then I use a doorway. I have no reaction one way or the other. Logic is merely the sensing mechanism for what I feed my consciousness. Man cannot walk through solid walls unaided and that is my assertion. It is you that must prove beyond doubt that this is possible for me to alter that position.

[Bud Jetsun]

Bud, your pretentious variation of reasoning could be adapted and plugged into or used as a tool to dismiss everything the historic Buddha taught or said...

Buddha was opposed to people writing his words down. However, through people remembering and someone elses interpretation into english, Buddha said ultimate Truth of reality is emptyness/nothingness.

 

He also mentioned a cause of your suffering is the delusions it was ever more than that.

 

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

Buddha was opposed to people writing his words down. However, through people remembering and someone elses interpretation into english, Buddha said ultimate Truth of reality is emptyness/nothingness.

He also mentioned a cause of your suffering is the delusions it was ever more than that.

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Reality is just as is it is, therefore there isn't anything to be said about it until somebody opposes that view point. I would be careful to avoid describing it as emptyness/nothingness but I can understand what is being said. Look at an object and what is seen? An object ? No, not even that.

[Aithrobates]

Logic is not intellectualism.

 

Logic exits to free us from illusions. With the good premices, that is taking perceptions as face value, and working from there.

 

The mystical and the intellectual both dream about things that can not be perceived, and assume their are because he/she is inspired to think them (mysticism), or infers that its right to to think them (intellectualism). In both cases they work on non-evident things. This is not the way to be in the Now, because you dream of things that possibly were, are, or will be; instead of percieving perceptions, and so percieving how the mind works.

 

It's easy to see that Rality has apparences, and that if we focus only on them we are deluded, because there is "something else" beyond, too. But it we chose to focus instead only on the "something", because we can feel or think it, we are equally deluded. We live only with one half of Reality.

 

By direct use of the perceptions we can experience that 1) there are apparences, 2) they are illusory, so 3) there should be something else too, but 4) the apparences are still here.

 

That's logic. Not the apparences, Not the truth beyond, not both, not neither. The only path left is what you'll call "Emptiness", because the mind needs a label.

 

That is logic, but that is not something the mind can grasp intellectually. The mind wants distinctions, rules, dualities, it does not satisfy with the tetralemna. We think that the intellect is rational, but it is not, it hates logic, because it craves for dinstinctions, it is dying to know what to fear, and what to desire.

 

So back to my points: distinctions

 

Some people love the apparences, and fear the infigurable beyond, often because for them it represents void, darkness, death. But both mystic and intellectual persons feel safe with the beyond they believe they can figure, and try to avoid being deluded. But it is the nature of Reality to have deceiving apparences, so we have to be deluded, and just not feel good or bad about that.

[Marblehead]

Logic is not intellectualism.

All this stuff is causing me to suffer.  And my suffering has nothing to do with fear.

[allinone]

Buddha was opposed to people writing his words down. However, through people remembering and someone elses interpretation into english, Buddha said ultimate Truth of reality is emptyness/nothingness.

 

He also mentioned a cause of your suffering is the delusions it was ever more than that.

 

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

e m p y n s e s t

 

It depends what meaning you have attached to the word emptiness. If something arises in your mediation then how you recognize emptiness?

[Marblehead]

Oh!, No!  Are we going to talk about Buddhist emptiness again?

 

I suppose I will have to get ready to talk about Taoist fullness again.

[allinone]

Oh!, No!  Are we going to talk about Buddhist emptiness again?

 

I suppose I will have to get ready to talk about Taoist fullness again.

 

i like cosmology of most of the religions.

[Marblehead]

Great.

 

Actually, the only problem I have with the Buddhist concept of "Emptiness" is that the thought is taken out of context and grossly misrepresented.  It is then when I start my oppositional comments.

[Karl]

Logic is not intellectualism.

 

Logic exits to free us from illusions. With the good premices, that is taking perceptions as face value, and working from there.

 

The mystical and the intellectual both dream about things that can not be perceived, and assume their are because he/she is inspired to think them (mysticism), or infers that its right to to think them (intellectualism). In both cases they work on non-evident things. This is not the way to be in the Now, because you dream of things that possibly were, are, or will be; instead of percieving perceptions, and so percieving how the mind works.

 

It's easy to see that Rality has apparences, and that if we focus only on them we are deluded, because there is "something else" beyond, too. But it we chose to focus instead only on the "something", because we can feel or think it, we are equally deluded. We live only with one half of Reality.

 

By direct use of the perceptions we can experience that 1) there are apparences, 2) they are illusory, so 3) there should be something else too, but 4) the apparences are still here.

 

That's logic. Not the apparences, Not the truth beyond, not both, not neither. The only path left is what you'll call "Emptiness", because the mind needs a label.

 

That is logic, but that is not something the mind can grasp intellectually. The mind wants distinctions, rules, dualities, it does not satisfy with the tetralemna. We think that the intellect is rational, but it is not, it hates logic, because it craves for dinstinctions, it is dying to know what to fear, and what to desire.

 

So back to my points: distinctions

 

Some people love the apparences, and fear the infigurable beyond, often because for them it represents void, darkness, death. But both mystic and intellectual persons feel safe with the beyond they believe they can figure, and try to avoid being deluded. But it is the nature of Reality to have deceiving apparences, so we have to be deluded, and just not feel good or bad about that.

 

That distinction between intellect and reasoning is very often conflated. Logic is more like learning a musical scale so well that you can hear flats and sharps with ease. I have found it's becoming ever more situated. Its interesting that you say intellect is threatened by it, I think also subjective emotions. As I studied it I could feel resistance like a grindstone in my mind. It felt like a refusal to accept it, like a stubborn animal it has to be forced to work.