Existing Wisdom

[kjones]

My first post is the question and email replies. The one I post following it is a summary.

Is wisdom Truth or Truth revealed? It arises after a reasoned identification of Truth. Thus, if perfection of wisdom is dependent on this thought, constancy is logically impossible, as Truth is not just this thought, or any, e.g. intuitive remembrance. But if perfection of wisdom is the constancy of a "post-enlightenment" kind of freedom from any remembrance of correct identifications, then there is no reasoning at all involved in actual nirvana. There is, however, in reaching nirvana. What answer do you have to this?

Replies:

Once you have reasoned something to be true, you don't need to go over the same reasoning endlessly. You just go straight to the answer, without reasoning. For example, you might reason that 5 + 5 = 10, and work this out longhand on paper. But once you've done it, ideally only once, the matter is settled for all time.

The same with Truth. Ideally, you only need to reason it through once, arrive at the conclusion, and then never have to reason it again. This reasoning would only take a few seconds. And when you've done the reasoning, the solution is all around you.

Once you have reached nirvana, reasoning continues, but only for the purpose of helping others towards enlightenment. For example, you would reason about what your purpose is for a start, and then you would reason about the best way to help others, etc.

Wisdom is the absence of making false moves. The perfectly-enlightened person constantly exists in a state of wisdom because he no longer makes any false moves. He doesn't have to make any conceptual identifications with Truth, nor does he have to reason his way into it. He already exists in Truth because he no longer falsely identifies it.

So he is constantly truthfully identifying?

No, he ceases to identify the Truth altogether. He knows that Truth cannot have a form.

Wisdom and ignorance, truth and lies; all arise from the same Reality - therefore, they are all expressions of that Reality. If I am caused to be ignorant of Truth - so be it. If I am caused to understand Truth - so be it. I can't control my thoughts; they come and go as they please. I can't make myself have truthful thoughts or ignorant thoughts - they just happen.

Reality is ever present, so Nirvana must also be ever present - that means I may experience it at any time, or not.

Hang on, that last bit is the problem. Nirvana is the understanding of Truth, so its nature is the same as Reality, but its existence is obviously different from not-understanding Truth. So it isn't exactly the same as Reality. Thus, it can't always be ever-present, though its nature is.

This is what I'm hung on: that the understanding exists, so is relative, but its meaning is what inherently exists, so is absolute.

My anger about the examples of others (on the forum earlier) arose because of wanting to gain perfection through striving for some finite entity: just this problem. The understanding can't be gained, but it also doesn't exist as everything, so it can disappear. The substance of the understanding can never disappear.

Is this what you're talking about: Nirvana is the substance of Reality, such that understanding doesn't really have an existence at all, even if it appears as something? So that any experience at all, even lack of understanding, is equivalent? That to me seems absurd.

The concept 'understanding Truth' is relative, as there is also the concept 'not understanding Truth'. As you say, both are underpinned by the Infinite, because both are caused. So, on the one hand, understanding and not understanding are the same thing, then on the other hand, they are not.

Boy, this is a slippery one!

It's slippery, because the mind keeps creating two separate circumstances - understanding exists, yet doesn't exist. How to resolve this? I suppose the only way to do it is to see that even though things don't exist inherently, they do exist because of their causes. So my 'understanding' is given by God, and is God.

So, when I was talking about Nirvana as being "ever present", I was talking about its causes, causes that are always active and ever present. If the circumstances are right, for example - I'm not brain injured, drugged to the eyeballs, been thinking about Truth steadily without getting too concerned about my development, then maybe the circumstances may be ripe for Nirvana to arise. I say "maybe", because I can't know for sure when it will arise, but I do know for sure that given a certain set of circumstances, like the not too drugged scenario, the chances of Nirvana arising gets better.

Now, to once again look at your original question - "Is wisdom Truth or Truth revealed? It arises after a reasoned identification of Truth. Thus, if perfection of wisdom is dependent on this thought, constancy is logically impossible, as Truth is not just this thought, or any, e.g. intuitive remembrance."

Applying my idea that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time, we can see that even though Truth exists at all times everywhere, 'I can know it' because of circumstances arising that bring this knowledge into existence, along with me, and everything else in the world. I keep on remembering it, because those circumstances keep arising, allowing me to
do so.

* * *

Let me know what you think of all this, as it is helping me learn how to talk about this topic, and further discussion would be interesting.

Sue

[kjones]

All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of one small candle.

-Kevin

Hold to the thought of truth for longer and longer periods of time.

-Kierkegaard


These sayings seem to make wisdom finite. If enlightenment is not the darkness of ignorance, and the thought of truth can be not-held, then wisdom is finite. It could exist, or not-exist.

But if it cannot be extinguished, then it cannot exist or not-exist. If there is total darkness, and no thought of truth whatsoever, this would then make no difference.

If wisdom is created by ignorance, then it is relative and mortal. So, if it is immortal, then it cannot be relative. So, any insights, and consciousness itself, are not essential to enlightenment, but are stepping-stones. Wisdom is neither understanding nor not-understanding. It must be the same as formlessness, and inherently exist.

Najarjuna talks of the interdependent origination of all things. This itself is a reflection of Truth, a catalyst. On reflection, one sees its mirror-nature. Without the clear reflection, there is a distorted image, or none at all. Nonetheless, all reflections are the same, including none at all. Reality appears as the mirror, and is not beyond it. Yet a clear image, undistorted by holding onto any images, is not itself the mirror.

The mirror doesn't appear as something in itself.

Wisdom isn't anything at all. So how can it exist?



Kelly

[Kevin Solway]

All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of one small candle.

-Kevin

Hold to the thought of truth for longer and longer periods of time.

-Kierkegaard


These sayings seem to make wisdom finite.

Wisdom is the consciousness of Truth, so it has a beginning and an end. Therefore it is finite.

But if it cannot be extinguished, then it cannot exist or not-exist.

Truthful ideas cannot be defeated by ignorant ideas. The idea of the first quote is that truth has the power to overturn ignorant ideas, but ignorant ideas cannot overturn truth.

Therefore one drop of truth in an ocean of ignorance can transform the entire ocean.

However, if the wise person is completely unable to spread his wisdom, for whatever reason, then wisdom won't be able to survive.

If wisdom is created by ignorance . . .

Wisdom is sometimes seen to arise out of ignorance. Wisdom is caused by many things.

Wisdom isn't anything at all. So how can it exist?

Wisdom is consciousness of Truth. So if this appears to exist, it exists.

[kjones]

Breakdown of the topic: How does one become enlightened, and fully?


First approach

Premise: Wisdom is being fully enlightened, since everything the fully enlightened one does is wise. He knows all that can be known of Ultimate Truth, has no doubts about what is wise in all situations, makes no false moves, has no false views.

Inference: Becoming fully enlightened means the understanding of Ultimate Truth is complete.

Problem: Becoming fully enlightened requires (i) intellectual and experiential understanding of Ultimate Truth, and (ii) total penetration of one's existence of this understanding. Neither parts of this process can depend on retaining one thought, blocking off all others. Therefore, fully developing in enlightenment cannot be remembrance of one conceptual thought, because constant remembrance actually requires two thoughts. Thus, there's no fullness possible in this approach.

Question: Is wisdom equivalent to Truth or a revelation of Truth (consciousness of .... something)?

Replies to question:

KS: The fully-enlightened one has reasoned about Ultimate Truth correctly and no longer needs to reason about Truth, develop or remember, for his own sake.

DQ: The fully-enlightened one knows Truth is formless, so doesn't reason further about it, or hold onto anything as Truth. He makes no false moves.

SH: Reality is everpresent, as causes, and enlightenment and ignorance are both causes, so both are really, not potentially, present. Understanding is of God, and is God. Therefore, enlightenment arises at any time, since whatever reminds one of Truth is everpresent.

Summary by KJ: If wisdom is of Truth, then it is ever-present, and not finite. It cannot be consciousness-dependent.

Reply to KJ summary:

KS: No, wisdom is full consciousness of Truth, yet not dependent on a particular existing revelation. The fully enlightened one is a drop of truth in an ocean of ignorance, that transforms the entire ocean, if it is caused to. This consciousness of Truth does not exist absolutely, but since its meaning is unfalsifiable, it is immortal (changeless). Nevertheless, it is thoroughly dependent for its arisal on conditions.

Second summary by KJ: Since wisdom is a creation of Reality, it is not everpresent, is causally created, and cannot arise at any time. It is not a certainty, nor is its existence predictable. There are certain factors that cause it to be more likely, but not definite.


Second Approach

Premise: To become fully enlightened requires that the individual perfect his understanding of Ultimate Truth, since his smaller self (the individual consciousness, "I" applied to himself as a unique person among persons) is the necessary unit of cohesive reasoning (one consciousness silently accessing its own powers of memory and reasoning, without necessarily relying on other units). Once this individual has persistently enlightened himself (his smaller unified self), by an ongoing application to undo false notions and repair false views by remembering and inferring wise insights, then he has become habitually capable of avoiding foul play. His process is dynamic[/i], not holding statically and fixedly to a particular finite thought. Tantric tools (exploring fears and delusions, relating them to Emptiness) are temporary medicines, not panaceas. The help to cut through the jungle of delusion, and slow its growth.

Inference: Becoming fully enlightened requires revelation of Truth and therefore consciousness. Nevertheless, consciousness of Truth is not restricted to awareness of an identification of Truth. Perfection is a process, of developing dynamically. It is logically possible because wisdom is the total absence of false views, which doesn't mean "never experiences false views". Revelation (realisation) is not particular thoughts, but cannot arise without consciousness of Truth, meaning there must be something.

Problem: The experience of Ultimate Truth is realising the nature of Reality, and realising reflectively that no realisation of the nature of Reality is enlightenment. This is because any experience is of Reality. Nevertheless, without this realisation having arisen, there cannot be enlightenment.

Question: If this realisation is contradicted, ie. there is belief in something to hold to, then this realisation must arise for there to be freedom from false views. Therefore, is not becoming fully enlightened a process of continuing to remember this realisation rather than the false views?



Kelly Jones

[Kevin Solway]

Question: If this realisation is contradicted, ie. there is belief in something to hold to, then this realisation must arise for there to be freedom from false views. Therefore, is not becoming fully enlightened a process of continuing to remember this realisation rather than the false views?

Truth must certainly be remembered. At first it is a struggle to remember it, but after long practice it is as easy to remember as, say, where your legs are. You don't normally have to actively remember where your legs are because your brain/body automatically remembers. The memory is so automatic that "memory" doesn't seem like the right word to describe it.

So, for as long as a person experiences things which contradict Truth, that person's memory of Truth is not automatic, and so they must consciously work to recall it to mind.

This process could be termed a form of meditation, or an advanced form of "mindfulness", to use the Buddhist term.

When confronted with a false view or experience, one might ask oneself, "How would a true sage, a Buddha, experience this very same thing - and why?", as an aid to try and recall the Truth to mind.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin

So, for as long as a person experiences things which contradict Truth, that person's memory of Truth is not automatic, and so they must consciously work to recall it to mind.

Must this always be the case? Isn’t the brain a faulty instrument by nature? Isn’t memory limited? Do I always need to experience things which contradict truth, in order to lose the memory of how to articulate something that at one time I realized was the truth?

I have had these experiences before, I have had a profound realization of something in the present moment, and thought it had been the first time, by looking back realized that I have come to that realization before…

a good label is “Dejavu Truth”

Are you saying that the time in between these realizations was a time of inner darkness? Its seems incomplete because during that time other realizations would have been made as well…

Regards
CP

[Eternal_Tom]

[apologies for intruding]

2 things:


firstly; surely the act of remembering an object changes your perception of the object in question? If there was an all encompassing truth which you experience, reflection upon that truth at a later date would alter the value of the truth for you (regardless of whether or not the truth was a fixed constant). So, either you must stop time in order to remain enlightened, or enlightenment once achieved must be unchanging... which leads me to


secondly; in order for me to see a "universal truth" about anything (for example the bottle of water on my desk) i have to be able to see the bottle from all possible perspectives in an instant. This would allow me to be fully aware of the bottle, not simply subjectively, but objectively too. But surely it's impossible for me to recognise in every moment the bottle from every perception. So at best I can only acknowledge the existance of an infinte number of bottles.


which i would apply to Truth too; in order for me to understand ultimate truth i have to be capable of recognising in a single instant (and all instances there-on) all possible subjective truthes which would lead me to a full (or objective) understanding of Truth.

[of course this relies on Truth being the end product of all subjective truthes combined, rather than a value of itself]

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin

So, for as long as a person experiences things which contradict Truth, that person's memory of Truth is not automatic, and so they must consciously work to recall it to mind.

Must this always be the case? Isn’t the brain a faulty instrument by nature? Isn’t memory limited?

Yes, the body is a faulty instrument as well. You can even forget where your legs are if you drink too much.

When it fails it must be repaired.

Do I always need to experience things which contradict truth, in order to lose the memory of how to articulate something that at one time I realized was the truth?

You have to forget truth first in order to experience something that contradicts truth. Of course, you will only know it contradicts truth once you start to remember truth again.

I have had these experiences before, I have had a profound realization of something in the present moment, and thought it had been the first time, by looking back realized that I have come to that realization before…

a good label is “Dejavu Truth”

This is a common experience. Someone can have an insight, say, while they are taking drugs, but the memory of it is usually lost. When they have the same insight years later, they might awaken a vague memory that they have had that insight before.

Are you saying that the time in between these realizations was a time of inner darkness?

More or less. It depends on how important the realization is. If it is a low-order realization, then it doesn't provide much light. So forgetting it isn't that much of a change.

Its seems incomplete because during that time other realizations would have been made as well…

There's only one primary realization that needs to be made and remembered.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin

There's only one primary realization that needs to be made and remembered.

but many teachings will say enlighenment is a state of unknowing which implies no memory.

sometimes I find myself in a state where there is absolutely nothing, I have no image of myself, and I'm not even aware of what I'm looking at. it is a state of nonexistence. and in that state there is no memory running in the background. and there is very little suffering either, but there is subtle feeling.

but most of the time that isnt the case. Most of the time memory is constantly running, memory defined as insecure thoughts, desires, fantasies playing in the background. memory seems to distort perception in this context.

so if memory distorts perception. memory being insecure thinking, then what is there to remember? is there anything to remember?

Some gurus say there is something profound to understand and remember, but others will say there is nothing to understand.

which end of this paradox is correct or are they both somehow incomplete.

or is it something like this:

there is nothing to understand, while in a state of clarity.

but there is something to understand, while in a state of confusion.

Regards
CP

[Kevin Solway]

firstly; surely the act of remembering an object changes your perception of the object in question?

It depends what it is you are remembering. If you are remembering a simple logical truth, such as "A = A" or "1 + 1 = 2" then the memory can be essentially identical to the original experience.

If, when you recall such a logical truth or pinciple, you learn more than you previously knew, then it means that your previous knowledge was incomplete. You have remembered something, and then built upon it.

If there was an all encompassing truth which you experience, reflection upon that truth at a later date would alter the value of the truth for you (regardless of whether or not the truth was a fixed constant).

Not necessarily. Let's say you remember that 1 = 1. Provided your initial understanding of this was complete, and your memory was complete, the truth of it would be unchanged.

If it's value to you changes, then it means either that the initial knowledge was incomplete, or that the later knowledge was incomplete.

secondly; in order for me to see a "universal truth" about anything (for example the bottle of water on my desk) i have to be able to see the bottle from all possible perspectives in an instant.

All you can ever tell about the "bottle of water" is that there is an appearance that can be labelled "bottle of water", from your current perspective. You can never see anything from any perspective other than your current one.

So at best I can only acknowledge the existance of an infinte number of bottles.

If your perpective is that there is one bottle, then there is one bottle. If your perspective is that there are many bottles, there are many bottles.

[kjones]

I've found the crux of the problem. Sue's second reply gets at it:

Applying my idea that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time, we can see that even though Truth exists at all times everywhere, 'I can know it' because of circumstances arising that bring this knowledge into existence, along with me, and everything else in the world. I keep on remembering it, because those circumstances keep arising, allowing me to do so.

Dualistic divisions, such as understanding and not-understanding, have to be seen as one, formlessness. Obviously whatever appears can be distinguished, since any denial that something was distinguished uses consciousness of the distinct appearance. Nevertheless, any consciousness at all of anything is ultimately the same. Seeing this one is not really consciousness of formlessness, because that would really be consciousness of consciousness of formlessness. The seeing of formlessness has itself to reflect its own truth, such that it is evidence of not being anything other than the one thing.

The one "light" of formlessness is that formlessness is the default. All one is to do, by realising the Ultimate Truth, is to stop casting things in a false light. I.e. stop building forms as if there's really something to get a-hold of.

Sue mentioned that Nirvana was ever-present as Reality, because all circumstances of Reality are the same formlessness as that understood in Nirvana. There's no place called heaven but everywhere. Only building up false constructs hinders it from being correctly perceived. Whoever constructs ignorance vs enlightenment (believing things are really inherent and part of Reality) cannot see Nirvana. Things appear, but it is really Reality.

...for as long as a person experiences things which contradict Truth, that person's memory of Truth is not automatic, and so they must consciously work to recall it to mind...."How would a true sage, a Buddha, experience this very same thing - and why?", [is] an aid to try and recall the Truth to mind.

Since Nirvana is not an event, therefore anything can help stop constructing enlightenment (or things in general as objectively real). To orient to the light that can't be outshone or even shone on by any other light, one need not seek ultimate spectacles or compasses. Any looking will do, as long as it is logically relates to formlessness. Seeking enlightenment is really a bit silly, then.


Cause and Effect
(Exploration to shed light on the real world. Forget enlightenment)

Cause and effect cannot be caused, so it's operating everywhere. This means Reality is entirely open, without being open-ended (or open-beginning-ed).

Cause and effect creates memory, and memory orders sequences of creation, creating "age" and "before and after". Cause and effect creates notions of time.

How things are determined is hidden. Creation is infinite interaction, but actions are themselves infinitely dividable in any way. There's really only illusions of divisions.

So there is no way to give Reality a finite causal appearance, or causal process. It can't be closed off into any interaction conceived of.

There's nothing but cause and effect, and since this is infinite, there is no cause and effect to be conceived of.

Everything is fully determined, being always illusory causes, but the total determinants for any thing can only be conceived of, as "not-the-thing". And since a thing is really an imaginary boundedness, the determinants are also. Thus, determination for the totality as having to be what it is (immortally) can never be bounded as such. Its immortality and totality-ness are also imagined. The Infinite is therefore not really thus. It isn't anything that can be really grasped, so we give it names to remember this.

Since the universe is thus empty, it cannot be fully determined empirically or even logically (truly any determination is a reflection of itself, such that a concept or name is ultimately nothing). It cannot be said to be "an ever-expanding universe" since this gives it a space-time continuum, an operating characteristic. Logically, it is not really an identity. All identities are made up. Does the wise man really determine what the universe is?

Is wisdom, which is dwelling "unmoving" in Nirvana, also made up? If there is any consciousness of doing something in the universe, that "totally" represents it, then this is moving falsely, and making up an identity. So, wisdom cannot have an identity. Or, more accurately, it has to be life catalysed by the faultless conclusion that it is made up. If this existence of emptiness (Truth) is an illusion, then Truth itself is an illusion. Since all things are illusory, can Reality itself be illusory?

But if this existence of emptiness is not an illusion, because it never comes into existence to create delusions, then Reality is not itself an illusion. As no thing can really come into existence, therefore wisdom is not an illusion.

which i would apply to Truth too; in order for me to understand ultimate truth i have to be capable of recognising in a single instant (and all instances there-on) all possible subjective truthes which would lead me to a full (or objective) understanding of Truth. [of course this relies on Truth being the end product of all subjective truthes combined, rather than a value of itself]

Well, the full understanding of Truth, the "end product", cannot ever be other than another manifestation of Reality, so it is still a value. But as I've just explained, it doesn't really have any value, and isn't really any value.


Kelly

[Kevin Solway]

Is wisdom, which is dwelling "unmoving" in Nirvana, also made up? If there is any consciousness of doing something in the universe, that "totally" represents it, then this is moving falsely, and making up an identity.

Nature makes up all identities. When an ignorant person uses identities, they do so ignorantly. And when a wise person uses identities they do so wisely. That is to say, they do not fall into error.

Wisdom is not inherently superior to ignorance. Nature causes the wise person to value wisdom, but also causes the ignorant person to value ignorance. Nature does not specify that one is ultimately any better than the other.

Since all things are illusory, can Reality itself be illusory?

Illusions themselves are not illusory. An illusion is something that appears to be something that it is not. A wise person and an ignorant person can look at the same thing, say, a flower, but the flower will be an illusion to the ignorant person, who is lost in the experience, and absolutely real to the wise person, who is aloof and looking from a broader perspective. While aloof, he is in fact infinitely more intimate with the real flower.

[kjones]

Thanks for the simple replies, Kevin. I'm still trying to get my head around this process of remembering what doesn't have any real identity, so I'm going to keep clarifying it.

It being an established fact that the object and the subject that are fit to be the contents of the concepts 'you' and 'we' (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows that their attributes can havit it still less.

Sankaracarya, Brahma-sutra-bhasya, 1-1, Preamble


The consciousness (Self) that creates things cannot stand apart from itself to create itself as a thing, so Self has no identity. One cannot know oneself.

Things are created never apart from consciousness, so in fact are the consciousness only. That which has no identity cannot stand apart from itself to know what is separate from itself, so ultimately there is nothing with identity.

The wise use identities wisely.

Wise is identitification without any movement to affirm or reject identities, since the affirmation or rejection (of identities being either subjectively or objectively real), really affirms in either case. There is really no sight with one, or two eyes, only sight.

Meditation in the MIDDLE of activity is 102 x 10 3 x 10 8 times superior to meditation in a state of tranquillity.

(Suggested yesterday by Rosemary, modern, not classical, Japanese translator)

Owing to an absence of discrimination between the attributes [of the object and subject], which are absolutely separate, there continues a natural human behaviour based on self-identification in the form of "I am this" or "This is mine".

It would seem that things seem to have independent and intrinsically real existence because their existence is contrasted, ignorantly, with the existence of the self. This is the delusion-originating belief, because it starts with a false premise.

The self doesn't have an existence, just because it can't be contrasted with itself. All the contrasts, and differences between things, cannot create existence, because there is no original and fundamentally real contrast possible.


Kelly

[Kevin Solway]

It being an established fact that the object and the subject that are fit to be the contents of the concepts 'you' and 'we' (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows that their attributes can havit it still less.

Sankaracarya, Brahma-sutra-bhasya, 1-1, Preamble


The consciousness (Self) that creates things cannot stand apart from itself to create itself as a thing, so Self has no identity. One cannot know oneself.

The key here, as I see it, is the part that says "fit to be the content of the concepts".

If we are happy just with the concepts, and don't presume the existence of "content", then we can indeed have identity. The "content" in this context would equate to inherent existence, which we can pass over since it is not real.

The self doesn't have an existence, just because it can't be contrasted with itself. All the contrasts, and differences between things, cannot create existence, because there is no original and fundamentally real contrast possible.

The "I" is really just a thought. Thoughts can exist, and so the "I", the identity of "self", can exist. Contrasts are constituted of different thoughts, and different identities. This whole process is fine so long as we don't introduce belief in inherent existence.