re: Proliferation of simplicity / Cessation of complexity

[ground]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

[Dairy Lama]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different? 

[ground]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

[ground]

No intentionality, no use. Simplicity which is suchness is empty of intentionality. 

[Dairy Lama]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

Meh.  Are you unable to answer my question, or just trying to sound clever?

[ground]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

Meh.  Are you unable to answer my question, or just trying to sound clever?

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, ... it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation."
SN 22.55

 

[Dairy Lama]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

Meh.  Are you unable to answer my question, or just trying to sound clever?

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, ... it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation."
SN 22.55

 

Please explain what the SN22.55 quote has to do with phassa ( contact ), or with the question I posed.

[ground]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

Meh.  Are you unable to answer my question, or just trying to sound clever?

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, ... it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation."
SN 22.55

 

Please explain what the SN22.55 quote has to do with phassa ( contact ), or with the question I posed.

"A person has six media of sensory contact.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six media of sensory contact: the eye as a medium of sensory contact, the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect as a medium of sensory contact.
...
Just as when, from the friction & conjunction of two fire sticks, heat is born and fire appears, and from the separation & disjunction of those very same fire sticks, the concomitant heat ceases, is stilled; in the same way, in dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain... One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling... ceases, is stilled.'"
MN 140

 

[ground]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

I think it depends how you interpret phassa ( contact ).  In the suttas it is described functionally as the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense consciousness - for example the meeting of eye, visible form and eye-consciousness.  It sounds descriptive of the point at which we notice a particular sense impression.  Is this the meaning you are using, or something different?

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

Meh.  Are you unable to answer my question, or just trying to sound clever?

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, ... it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation."
SN 22.55

 

Please explain what the SN22.55 quote has to do with phassa ( contact ), or with the question I posed.

"A person has six media of sensory contact.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six media of sensory contact: the eye as a medium of sensory contact, the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect as a medium of sensory contact.
...
Just as when, from the friction & conjunction of two fire sticks, heat is born and fire appears, and from the separation & disjunction of those very same fire sticks, the concomitant heat ceases, is stilled; in the same way, in dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain... One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling... ceases, is stilled.'"
MN 140

 

The quotes provided from the pali canon clearly demonstrate that the pali canon is utter proliferation. Therefore the pali canon feeds the innate urge to proliferate into complexity.

Spiny Norman and other buddhists are victims of the pali canon.

The pali canon and all other budddhist texts can and should be reduced to a set of only a few sentences since buddhism can and should be reduced to simplicity which is suchness.

" 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' ... there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' " MN121

Thoughts and perceptions are useless 

[philboyd]

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

[ground]

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

No belief, no philosophy, no dependence, no reality.

Empty of everything and nothing. 

[Chaz]

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

No belief, no philosophy, no dependence, no reality.

Empty of everything and nothing. 

That's  really clever.  But thats about all.  About as empty as a bucket of @%&*

[ground]

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

No belief, no philosophy, no dependence, no reality.

Empty of everything and nothing. 

That's  really clever. 

Suchness, i.e. simplicity, doesn't know 'clever'. 

[Chaz]

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

No belief, no philosophy, no dependence, no reality.

Empty of everything and nothing. 

That's  really clever. 

Suchness, i.e. simplicity, doesn't know 'clever'. 

How would you know?  You haven't achieved it.

[philboyd]

Isn't it fascinating how that which is utterly simple has an inherent urge to proliferate into complexity?

If one does not trace back complexity to its source how can there ever be what the theravadins call 'nibbida' and 'virago'?

Empty of everything and nothing. 

In simplicity thoughts and perceptions are useless. They are the manifestations of the inherent urge which does not know. Being useless they are negative repelling any contact (phassa). Repelling any contact they leave no trace.

Utter boundless equanimity.

Once tasted the urge to proliferate ceases since knowing has taken its place. 

Emptiness births fascination?

It is fascinating that you proliferate a belief that is unique, while at the same time heavily dependent on Buddhist teachings. Creating a you and other by deprecating the very philosophy you have structured your reality on.

No belief, no philosophy, no dependence, no reality.

Empty of everything and nothing.