k a steger:
sure.. but as what i choose to write and to whom is my decision to make, not yours, then surely i can answer whosever queries in the manner i best see fit, can i not?
No one is making a choice for you. Agreed, who you answer is your choice. Did you read your thoughts or my words?
i most definitely read your words.. though without, by the way, always realising that some of those words could mean multiple things, including things i have not considered. and i say that as an aside because my declaration of rightful prerogative here (above) was a direct response to your attestation (further above) that ' do not think of these points that we've discussed as trivial, appreciate time and thoughts, and can wait for answers in view of another's whose queries triage higher.'
in other words, i was merely pointing out that whatever thoughts motivated your words, i did not share them; i did not, unlike you, triage another person's queries more highly than yours.
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
feeling caring feelings is not the same as actually caring
Of course. Watermelon is tastier than picture of watermelon.
assuming 'watermelon' is here actually caring, then there are ways one can want watermelon that will cause one to remain watermelon-less.. and there are ways one can want watermelon that will deliver it. it is overly simplistic (that is, inaccurate and unrealistic) to think of the relationship between the two overall ways of wanting as a linear progression from the former to the latter that necessarily happens. one can certainly remain watermelonless.
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
there is a clear difference between digesting it and excreted it.
What is the difference you are thinking of here? I am thinking manure has great uses.
i am thinking of the difference between being resigned to cycle in and out of misery, however light or sporadic the load may be... and being out of the entire cycle completely.
being purely intent on the latter leads to it.
seeing misery for what it is - utterly futile (as it is caused by a process which is not beneficial), yet not inevitable (as it is caused by a process which is not necessary) - leads to this pure intent.
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
yet, if everyone there were simultaneously offered a way better place to live, a community where their basic needs would be completely met and their lives would be completely dignified, and where they would be no animosity toward each other at all and so there would be no murder rate, would they not have rather opted for that?
Not agreed. People often want what others have - beyond basic needs, and, wanting, there is an arising.
i ended up conflating two points there; let me re-write that:
(1) yet, if everyone there were simultaneously offered a way better place to live, a community where their basic needs would be completely met, where the peaceable character of the community meant that animosity were rarely funneled into physical rage, and where murder was a scarce occurrence rather than an everyday fact of life, would they not have rather opted for that?
(2) similarly, if everyone were offered a means by which they could make their lives completely dignified, in which they would have no animosity toward each other, and so there would be no murder rate at all, would they not also rather opt for that?
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
'you' are that simultaneous everyone.
Please clarify. There are many understandings of this statement.
i meant that, in a sense, 'you' are simultaneously 'everyone' that is 'in' your psyche ... and that this sense of things is relevant and applicable to the situation because if 'you' were to see this, and so 'you' were to care about 'everyone', then 'everyone' would care about 'everyone' (including 'you').
when 'you' are the 'everyone' that cares about 'everyone', 'you' will naturally, sincerely, mean well (you will
be the well-meaning).
to do this, all 'you' have to do is care about 'everyone' (including 'you').
the way to care about 'everyone' in such a manner is to realise that one is one's feelings, and that one's feelings are oneself.
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
'i' was self-indulgent to the hilt... and indulged whatever passions arose without aim or discretion.
...
then, then, 'i' discovered that the body-mind has an innate capacity to manage very well (and to treat others very well) on its own without 'my' interference ... a discovery 'i' could have only made by meaning as well as 'i' had learnt to.
How does something innate - "capacity to manage very well (and to treat others very well)" become subject to self-indulgence? Is self-indulgence more innate?
yes, self-indulgence is the default setting.. whereas it takes a closer discernment of the facts (what is going on in the world?) and of one's feelings (what is it that i really want?) to reveal that the body-mind has an innate capacity to manage very well (and to treat others very well) on its own without 'my' interference.
along the way, the closer discernment reveals the value of meaning well.. which is found in
being the meaning (that is, in
being well-meaning).
the difference between
being the well-meaning and having good intentions is the difference between
being caring and having caring feelings.
just as 'i' am 'my feelings', and 'my feelings' are 'me', 'i' am 'my intentions' (my desires), and 'my intentions' (my desires) are 'me'.
*
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
you view purity of consciousness as the cessation of conditions (which is ultimately cessation of consciousness).. and view the experience of this world as an impurity. that is exactly what 'i', at its most extreme, does
Tarin, you ascribe erroneously an impure world view to me in response to my view that there is no "Pure Consciousness Experience". Do you actually prefer ascribing impure world view to a conventionally non-you versus reading the findings of a conventionally non-you?
ha, no... however, for me, the relevant distinction is between reading what my fellow human beings write and reading what my fellow human beings write in a way that conveys the correct understanding of what those words were selected (by them) to mean.
k a steger:
My view is not "the experience of this world as an impurity". [ 1) I do not evidence 'this world', 2) I do not know if things exist in a vacuum, but what I see is things exist in a mix influencing each other, arising new things: nothing in a non-effecting state nor non-effected state, as far as I have seen. Therefore, no "pure" state, no state free of mixed matter].
as guilherme, above, notes, a cause of confusion here has been our different uses of the phrase 'pure consciousness experience', due to our using different meanings of the world 'pure'.
i affirm what guilherme reports, namely that:
'... in the term "pure consciousness experience" did not mean it as an experience of only consciousness at the exclusion of sensations, which, as I understand is what the term "pure consciousness event" refers to. The "pure" in "pure consciousness experience" refers to the absence of feelings and self, which are considered the impurities not the sensations.'
...and that, as i use the term the same way as does richard, then that too (that 'pure' refers to the absence of feelings and self) is what i mean by 'pure consciousness experience'
to re-iterate, the way i used the word 'pure' (in the phrase 'pure consciousness experience') was to refer to a mode of experience one can have while conscious, but not to refer to consciousness as a substance, and so not to refer to a mode of experience one can have while conscious wherein all that one is conscious of is consciousness (to the exclusion of all other phenomena).
k a steger:
I have noted the 6 senses (sight, sound, taste, feeling, smell, consciousness) and said they cannot be experienced in purity; each sense continues to exist in a living being, notwithstanding the perception of the other senses may be diminished when attention is placed on one of them .
in noting the 6 senses as comprising sight, sound, taste, feeling, smell, and consciousness, where would you then place thought and other mental processes (such as recognition, the use of language, or decision-making) of which you are conscious?
i ask so as to get a better understanding of what you would consider a 'pure consciousness experience' (devoid of any physical percept) to be.
so far, an experience of that sounds like the buddhist formless realms.
needless to say, that's not what i'm talking about when i say 'pce'.
k a steger:
I do not glorify the consciousness experience anymore than I glorify the taste experience. They are both insightful.
thank you for this clarification and i apologise for the misunderstanding.
if you don't mind? let's put all our cards on the table. what is it that you value? what would you like to be the case, or to achieve?
what i value here is for a continuous and durable peace to exist for every individual man, woman, and child on this planet who chooses it. i have already achieved that for myself.
hence, i refer to the pure consciousness experience in those terms ('pure' and 'conscious') because it is a mode of experience in which the
purity of the world, when
consciously experienced, becomes apparent ... and i bother referring to such a mode of experience at all because this experience enables to become apparent the way for a continuous and durable peace (for every individual man, woman, and child on this planet who chooses it) to exist.
*
k a steger:
Is AF glorifying consciousness in the "Pure Consciousness Experience" by not having the "Pure Tactile Experience"?
i cannot make sense of that question.. could you please explain it?
k a steger:
Senses exist at once. I would say that's being, not 'pure'. This is the zen parable of the master of amazing feats: when he sleeps, he sleeps. When he eats, he eats.
does this master of amazing feats in the zen parable also feel sad when he feels sad, and feel angry when he feels angry?
does he also tautology when he tautologies?[1]
*
k a steger:
Tarin wrote:
well, you say you recognise being in the dark night, which means you should have some insight into what the dark night is, which means you should know, at least in theory, that suffering is not caused by external conditions, which means you should know that suffering is, rather, caused by the conditions upon which it dependently arises.
do you understand the second noble truth?
Have you ever walked into a screen door when you go out on a deck? It's amazing how many times I have done that in a new location. I see other people do it, so I realize we may know something, yet have habits which reiterate the previous unknown. Do you walk into screen doors you already know are there? Your reasoning suggests that a person who knows screen doors only runs into them once.
yes, and no.
to use your example, can you see how, by believing that 'feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does something to actually end such cruelty and suffering', you keep walking into the same (kind of) screen door again and again?
and can you see how, if you were to understand the second noble truth (that suffering is caused by the conditions upon which it dependently arises), you would understand, once and for all, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) only serves to perpetuate the cruelty and suffering in yourself, and by extension, the world?
k a steger:
Do you resent people in dark night, or do you have feelings of felicitous patience?
neither.. i have no such feelings whatsoever.
k a steger:
If I were not interested in removing the arrow, I would not be on the site.
if i thought you were not interested in removing the poisoned arrow, i would probably not be corresponding with you here.
further, if i thought you were not interested in seeing why your interest in removing the poisoned arrow remains merely an interest (rather than has effected the arrow's removal), i would probably not be corresponding with you here in such a fashion (as to indicate that an interest in indulging feeling miserable/disgusted/angry for any reason whatsoever is sufficient to obstruct the poisoned arrow's removal).
k a steger:
Are you angry to see people walking around with arrows stuck in them, partially removed, in a waiting room, studying the proposed doctor and the proposed medicine?
no, not at all.
k a steger:
Then your MN 63 is raised one MN 38

as i have answered your question negatively, then perhaps you will not raise my MN 63 with one MN 38 after all.. yet, if you wish to make that reference anyway, you may have to explain its relevance, as it appears to me to have here no currency.
*
k a steger:
And...I appreciate this dialogue! Very useful.
it would be useful to me to know how you have found it useful to you, as knowing that much may indicate to me what sorts of things are useful to say, and what things to leave aside, at least for another day.
tarin
[1] if guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean that toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?