Observation

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm sure there are hundreds of obvious examples (such as a-bombs) of reason being applied, but destructively, in the absence of wisdom. (Why am I stating the obvious?)

I am expressing the perspective of rationality. you seem to confuse this with 'reasoning'. Maybe what you do not get is that reasoning may be rational or irrational. The word 'wisdom' can be skipped in the context of rationality.

Originally Posted by Gem

That has nothing to do with what I said.

As to the first sentence quoted by you: Of course since you applied the word 'right' from a moralist perspective whereas I am applying it from a perspective of rationality.
As to the second sentence quoted by you: From my perspective it has.

Originally Posted by Gem

Ok, but this seems to have little to nothing to do with what I have said about metta. You're not saying anything about metta here, either. You're on the anti-metta warpath. hahaha.

Well from my perspective it is what you expressed. I am not 'on the anti-metta warpath' I have just stated that metta is a buddhist practice and I have referred to buddhist texts when specifying the outcome of metta practice as transient.

Since 'the emotional pool' is empty from the outset there is no need to fill it with metta. 'Empty from the outset' also means there is no need for antidote emotionalities like metta. There is no antidote to emptiness and there is no 'need for' in emptiness.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

I am expressing the perspective of rationality. you seem to confuse this with 'reasoning'. Maybe what you do not get is that reasoning may be rational or irrational. The word 'wisdom' can be skipped in the context of rationality.

As to the first sentence quoted by you: Of course since you applied the word 'right' from a moralist perspective whereas I am applying it from a perspective of rationality.

Yes. You appear to be saying rationality can exist without ethical consideration, and no wisdom is required.

As to the second sentence quoted by you: From my perspective it has.


Well from my perspective it is what you expressed.

In that case you misunderstood, but that's not surprising to me for reasons I have already explained.

I am not 'on the anti-metta warpath' I have just stated that metta is a buddhist practice and I have referred to buddhist texts when specifying the outcome of metta practice as transient.

I suggest a community of individuals that practice kindness will benefit from doing so, and a community which practices nastiness will be a miserable one. (I'm stating the obvious again).

Since 'the emotional pool' is empty from the outset there is no need to fill it with metta. 'Empty from the outset' also means there is no need for antidote emotionalities like metta. There is no antidote to emptiness and there is no 'need for' in emptiness.

Basically, the purification is of mere consequence to conscious awareness with equanimity, which is pure observation: to see without reactivity. As a consequence of purification, the pure love arises throughout the mind/body. That's how Metta comes to be expressed as an attitude, and in in the mundane activity of the day to day.

In the tradition I was trained in, novices are excluded from loving kindness meditation because they generally have not touched upon the opening of love within themselves. The experienced members of the Sangha don't practice anything like that when they actually feel agitated within. If the lifeform is opened to it, then it can be deliberately practiced so as to enhance its radiance.

There were culturally appropriate formalities which relate. For example, in a nightly sitting of Metta meditation, people could internally forgive anyone they have conflict with - or felt ill will toward that day, and we could sit for a while well knowing that all was well between us, and we all wished well toward each other - regardless of the day's tensions.

In the context of a forum thread, it's only sensible to be kind rather than nasty. When I say this it feels like I'm addressing young children, and as adults we all know this anyway. The reasons are completely obvious.

This relates back to the volition/karma, because any ill will arising in a person cannot bring good results. Analogy is, you can't plant bitter lemons and expect to harvest sweet mangoes. All this is rather childish, and obvious to us all, but still, because people are prone to negative reactions and projecting onto others, spreading their misery around them, it's still relevant even to an adult group, and probably moreso.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

This was informative to read in this way you have shared.. What do you mean by that tricky bit, cant intend to cease. Are you saying that the natural process of ones life/piece as the whole decides this as a process of itself unfolding?

Yes. I think so. I reword by saying that what we think of as will power, volition, is an illusion between reaction and action, and what we think of as 'being willing' is the cessation of 'volition'. To the willing, life is unfolding 'as it is'.

"Decides" is a bit of of a tough one... as that implies a volitional individual... but yes, good enough - intelligently created according to anyone's primary interest.

Like why do some have to realize and others just go about normal living without full realization of this stuff? Some people don't even have to notice this to live their lives..

I think people continue to do what has worked in the past, like, they survived this long doing whatever they do, so it's reasonable to assume it will continue to survive them. I think for most people, they keep doing until they get so tired they just have to lie down. For example, Tolle arrived eventually at that suicidal night on which he contemplated 'who' is the 'myself' that 'I' can't live with anymore?. People call it the dark night of the soul or something like that when a person gets so tired that they can't continue, futility, deep existential crisis and fear and misery tend to precede the last surrender, which comes surprisingly rather than intentionally.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes. You appear to be saying rationality can exist without ethical consideration, and no wisdom is required.

'Wisdom' is not defined and can be all and everything. Therefore 'wisdom' is applied in the sphere of beliefs and religions. Rationality is empty of beliefs therefore application of the word 'wisdom' can be skipped in the context of rationality.
And yes rationality is also empty of ethical consideration. Rationality is naturally impartial.

Originally Posted by Gem

In that case you misunderstood, but that's not surprising to me for reasons I have already explained.

One man's 'understanding' is another man's 'misunderstanding'. There is nothing to do about it.

Originally Posted by Gem

I suggest a community of individuals that practice kindness will benefit from doing so, and a community which practices nastiness will be a miserable one. (I'm stating the obvious again).

In emptiness of kindness and nastiness and any other emotionality there is neither benefit nor harm.

Originally Posted by Gem

Basically, the purification is of mere consequence to conscious awareness with equanimity, which is pure observation: to see without reactivity. As a consequence of purification, the pure love arises throughout the mind/body. That's how Metta comes to be expressed as an attitude, and in in the mundane activity of the day to day.

In the tradition I was trained in, novices are excluded from loving kindness meditation because they generally have not touched upon the opening of love within themselves. The experienced members of the Sangha don't practice anything like that when they actually feel agitated within. If the lifeform is opened to it, then it can be deliberately practiced so as to enhance its radiance.

There were culturally appropriate formalities which relate. For example, in a nightly sitting of Metta meditation, people could internally forgive anyone they have conflict with - or felt ill will toward that day, and we could sit for a while well knowing that all was well between us, and we all wished well toward each other - regardless of the day's tensions.

In the context of a forum thread, it's only sensible to be kind rather than nasty. When I say this it feels like I'm addressing young children, and as adults we all know this anyway. The reasons are completely obvious.

This relates back to the volition/karma, because any ill will arising in a person cannot bring good results. Analogy is, you can't plant bitter lemons and expect to harvest sweet mangoes. All this is rather childish, and obvious to us all, but still, because people are prone to negative reactions and projecting onto others, spreading their misery around them, it's still relevant even to an adult group, and probably moreso.

There are countless contrived views as there are countless traditions and individual biases. One view being more subtle, the other being more coarse. What they have in common is the view of causality and the view of antidotes based on divisions, based on acceptance and rejection.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

'Wisdom' is not defined and can be all and everything. Therefore 'wisdom' is applied in the sphere of beliefs and religions. Rationality is empty of beliefs therefore application of the word 'wisdom' can be skipped in the context of rationality.
And yes rationality is also empty of ethical consideration. Rationality is naturally impartial.


One man's 'understanding' is another man's 'misunderstanding'. There is nothing to do about it.


In emptiness of kindness and nastiness and any other emotionality there is neither benefit nor harm.

There are countless contrived views as there are countless traditions and individual biases. One view being more subtle, the other being more coarse. What they have in common is the view of causality and the view of antidotes based on divisions, based on acceptance and rejection.

Ok, fair point, but I didn't propose any acceptance or rejection - made no mention of that at all.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

...I didn't propose any acceptance or rejection - made no mention of that at all.

you posited metta as opposed to aversion or nastiness expressing acceptance of metta and rejection of aversion or nastiness.
Also you are advocating ethical consideration and acceptance and rejection and ethical consideration are inseparable.
These acceptances and rejections are an ordinary mind's perspective and I do not say 'Don't do that' because that would be appealing to ordinary mind. It is just that ordinary mind isn't the ground of being which is awareness and it is impossible to argue from an ordinary mind's perspective 'into' the perspective of awareness.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

you posited metta as opposed to aversion or nastiness expressing acceptance of metta and rejection of aversion or nastiness.
Also you are advocating ethical consideration and acceptance and rejection and ethical consideration are inseparable.
These acceptances and rejections are an ordinary mind's perspective and I do not say 'Don't do that' because that would be appealing to ordinary mind. It is just that ordinary mind isn't the ground of being which is awareness and it is impossible to argue from an ordinary mind's perspective 'into' the perspective of awareness.

Kindness as opposed to nastiness. On the more general subject of Metta I said something about our essential nature, the human lifeform, and purity of love.

Ethical considerations are critical. For example, this is a truthful inquiry.

I agree, and have said on more than one occasion that argument only indicates a complete misunderstanding of this thread's subject matter.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

I agree, and have said on more than one occasion that argument only indicates a complete misunderstanding of this thread's subject matter.

From my perspective only in the context of understanding 'argument' as aiming at truth. However arguing that one type of linguistic expression is appropriate from a certain perspective while another type of linguistic expression is inappropriate from this same perspective is only rational because a view that is expressed in a certain way cannot be expressed in a way that is the expression of another view.
In this vein I have written ...

Originally Posted by Ground

... it is impossible to argue from an ordinary mind's perspective 'into' the perspective of awareness.

... which means that it is impossible to express the perspective of awareness using expressions from the perspective or ordinary mind. Therefore 'kindness' as opposed to nastiness, 'pure' or 'divine love' and ethical considerations are inappropriate expressions to approach the ground of being as awareness.

Having said that I acknowledge that your intention in the context of this thread might have been to only receive expressions that comply with your own view and your expression of it. This then of course would be an expectation I cannot meet since I won't give up authentic expression. Nevertheless the challenge of finding appropriate expressions when expressing a view from the perspective of awareness as opposed to another view is a very inspiring linguistic exercise.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Gem

Kindness as opposed to nastiness. On the more general subject of Metta I said something about our essential nature, the human lifeform, and purity of love.

Ethical considerations are critical. For example, this is a truthful inquiry.

I agree, and have said on more than one occasion that argument only indicates a complete misunderstanding of this thread's subject matter.

Hey Gem,


I don't understand is Dzogchen learners only use a few words to prove his lower practice of religion or the limited using of words or argument creative power are exhausted江郎才尽. Or just to pretending his argument or outlook is higher than usual aspect of thought. But their achievement can never evolving to a high standard expected. Why? Is it just pretentious of wisdom or nothingness in Buddhism teaching?

What I can comment is, it's a religion high in aiming but with limited perspective眼界狭小or be fastidious but incompetent眼高手低that means be exacting but incapable. His argument is of one pattern and the same mistake saying again and again. I think small kid also can rote from his writing as a copy cat. By using a few words to beat the world greatest event so he's confirm to beat about the bush.

If he went to the court or engage in a lawsuit , I wondered can he win the case? He doesn't bring out fact to prove but can he stand and argue in front of all religions or just in front of common people or human practice of human law? And he can argue with Buddhist by using Dzogchen teaching and to say, other's saying is not appropriate in Dzogchen. He must have forgotten we're doing the discussion of Buddhism. And he's not using Buddhism perspective to argue with Buddhist. That's funny especially for your thread.

You said your, I argued what I believed of mine but not Buddhism. That's absurd indeed. I wonder what are you people arguing about?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

From my perspective only in the context of understanding 'argument' as aiming at truth. However arguing that one type of linguistic expression is appropriate from a certain perspective while another type of linguistic expression is inappropriate from this same perspective is only rational because a view that is expressed in a certain way cannot be expressed in a way that is the expression of another view.
In this vein I have written ...

... which means that it is impossible to express the perspective of awareness using expressions from the perspective or ordinary mind. Therefore 'kindness' as opposed to nastiness, 'pure' or 'divine love' and ethical considerations are inappropriate expressions to approach the ground of being as awareness.

Having said that I acknowledge that your intention in the context of this thread might have been to only receive expressions that comply with your own view and your expression of it.

I suggest you distinguish between the stuff you're making up with what you acknowledge.

This then of course would be an expectation I cannot meet since I won't give up authentic expression. Nevertheless the challenge of finding appropriate expressions when expressing a view from the perspective of awareness as opposed to another view is a very inspiring linguistic exercise.