The Teachings of Chuang Tzu

[kjones]

Being of 1,

Let me know if I've addressed your point, and thanks for your patience:

You have a mass of conflicting thought that is trying to prove 'emptiness' and over and over you affirm there is no emptiness.

Because you have to eliminate something or someone that is not really there but then again they are - but then they aren`t really there but sometimes they are.

It's easy to misunderstand what I said, so accept my apologies for not taking enough time to create clear definitions for you. When I said that things don't inherently exist, I never meant things don't exist at all. That would be insane, I agree. Things obviously appear, and do exist.

My meaning is that things don't actually have real existence in the way people commonly believe. That is, the boundedness of things, that is usually believed to make things distinctly separate from each other, is never actually absolute. By absolute, I mean "inherent", "doesn't rely on anything". Thus, no thing absolutely and inherently exists, since, at the very least, a thing relies on the existence of a thing that it is not. So, hot relies on cold, short relies on long, put-down-child relies on not-put-down-child, computer relies on not-computer, and appearances rely on not-appearances. All things exist in this causal fashion.

In short, there is never an occasion when a thing can really and truly be said to exist, on its own, absolutely. A highly logical mind is needed to examine this truth. It is like amplifying one's thoughts, and making them very clear and obvious, drawn up out of the vague realm of feelings, desires, and instincts.

So, you need to see that I've not been wanting to kill things that aren't there at all. The unwanted child certainly is a concept that appears to mind. It exists, relative to "not - the - unwanted - child" (everything else). But because of this existential relationship, it doesn't ultimately have any existence of its own. It isn't really bounded and separate. Does this not make sense?


-
[edited for clarity]

[Beingof1]

kjones:

Let me know if I've correctly understood, and thanks for your patience:

Bless you KJones

You already expressed this intention: to know what is always true. What's your view on absolute truth?

First I would like to talk about emptiness, bear with me.

What is discussed and thought of as emptiness in what you described is important. What I think is much more vital is how do we apply this truth to our daily decisions and lives? In other words how do we view ourselves, others, and the all?

Your thought here:

The idea was about removing the mental agitation caused by attachment to things, which in turn provides enough clear, focussed attention for deep and abstract thought. One enters an analytical mindstate.

This is the intended goal, to actually experience what we know is truth.

Most derive their identity from the past, their experiences and history. They were born in such and such country and city. Parents were... brothers and sisters etc.
Because we have such an incredible abilty for recall and abstract thought this is confused as to what and who we are. Memory defines most people as if the memory and definition of past life experience is what and who we are. It is reinforced by smells, tastes, and especially emotional attachment to the past. Good and bad memories make up the self actualizing individual.

No doubt we did in fact experience the past and we can learn and grow from these memories, but they are not reality at all. Our past assists us into the future as well as the present and so; the mind plays a game on itself and mixes or confuses the past with present reality.

The emptiness I am discussing is the ever present unfolding of reality. The only one that has ever or will ever exist. This is true existence but the funny thing is the moment you try to perceive it - it is already history.

This present moment is truth and perception of it in actuality is wisdom. I did not exist - but I do exist and yet the person I was that began this paragraph no longer exists. There is no way to maintain this past expression, it is to attempt the futile.

I am reality in this moment - this is emptiness as applied to personal experience.

[kjones]

I just edited my reply, above, but it still works out ok.

I'm going to apply my needling again, to your view on absolute truth. I'll explain my reasoning as clearly as I possibly can, to show why I think it's not correct.

KJ: What's your view on absolute truth?

Bo1: First I would like to talk about emptiness, bear with me.

What is discussed and thought of as emptiness in what you described is important. What I think is much more vital is how do we apply this truth to our daily decisions and lives? In other words how do we view ourselves, others, and the all?

I disagree that the application is more vital than the understanding of absolute truth. The reason is, if there's any mistake in the understanding of emptiness, it will show in its application. It's like a compass: if it is even slightly off true North, then the direction taken will be awry.

A person's decisions, views, and actions are not absolutely reliable indicators of enlightenment. How one expresses truth is usually, but not absolutely, evidence of a personal understanding, but it could well be that person is a hallucination, or a puppet.

KJ: The idea was about removing the mental agitation caused by attachment to things, which in turn provides enough clear, focussed attention for deep and abstract thought. One enters an analytical mindstate.

Bo1: No doubt we did in fact experience the past and we can learn and grow from these memories, but they are not reality at all. Our past assists us into the future as well as the present and so; the mind plays a game on itself and mixes or confuses the past with present reality.

The emptiness I am discussing is the ever present unfolding of reality. The only one that has ever or will ever exist. This is true existence but the funny thing is the moment you try to perceive it - it is already history.

This present moment is truth and perception of it in actuality is wisdom. I did not exist - but I do exist and yet the person I was that began this paragraph no longer exists. There is no way to maintain this past expression, it is to attempt the futile.

I am reality in this moment - this is emptiness as applied to personal experience.

Right, I disagree with this also. Hang in there, I'll explain why.

I'm only interested in what is absolutely true, ie. Ultimate Reality, not a particular division of Ultimate Reality. I'm not interested in the truth that only applies to a finite portion of Reality, as this is not absolutely true.

Because you have split experiences into present and past/future, and call reality that which is "presently unfolding", you automatically reject the obvious reality of anything that is not "right now". This approach makes anything that has happened, such as your birth, or will happen, such as your death, unreal.

When you say, you as what was, does not exist, you are lying, because at the moment you conceive of it, you prove that it did exist as a forerunner to your present existence. That is true even though the memory appears now. It is conceived of using a temporal construct, "the person that began this paragraph". In that way, it certainly does exist, and is real.

The fact that there is ultimately no boundary between any existence, means that Reality is one, and has no inherent separate existences, such as now, or then.


--

[Beingof1]

kjones:

I'll explain my reasoning as clearly as I possibly can, to show why I think it's not correct.

The reason you think it is not correct is because of who said it, not because of what is being said.

I disagree that the application is more vital than the understanding of absolute truth. The reason is, if there's any mistake in the understanding of emptiness, it will show in its application.

What is it that you disagree with? I must have missed it.

A person's decisions, views, and actions are not absolutely reliable indicators of enlightenment. How one expresses truth is usually, but not absolutely, evidence of a personal understanding, but it could well be that person is a hallucination, or a puppet.

I know what you mean, I talk with hand puppets most of the time.

What is a reliable indicator of enlightenment?

Right, I disagree with this also. Hang in there, I'll explain why.

OK

I'm only interested in what is absolutely true, ie. Ultimate Reality, not a particular division of Ultimate Reality. I'm not interested in the truth that only applies to a finite portion of Reality, as this is not absolutely true.

OK

Because you have split experiences into present and past/future, and call reality that which is "presently unfolding", you automatically reject the obvious reality of anything that is not "right now".

Could you post this yesterday so we can all have a good example of this "obvious reality"?

This approach makes anything that has happened, such as your birth, or will happen, such as your death, unreal.

I wasn`t born yesterday ya know :)

Once again you are projecting.
You are trying to interject your memory into the present. You are also trying to use predictive analysis to snatch reality from its grasp into your preconceived formula.

Did you experience your birth today?
Did you die today?

When you say, you as what was, does not exist, you are lying, because at the moment you conceive of it, you prove that it did exist as a forerunner to your present existence.

Here we go again with the contradictions. If it was a forerunner is it existence?

When I said "I did not exist", it was intended in context. It was not to be applied as an absolute, it was designed to emphasize.

That is true even though the memory appears now. It is conceived of using a temporal construct, "the person that began this paragraph". In that way, it certainly does exist, and is real.

It is only a premise for your formula of reality. You can use your memory all you want, it is not the building block of reality.

The fact that there is ultimately no boundary between any existence, means that Reality is one, and has no inherent separate existences, such as now, or then.

Yup, thats what I said alright.

[kjones]

-

KJ: Because you have split experiences into present and past/future, and call reality that which is "presently unfolding", you automatically reject the obvious reality of anything that is not "right now".

Bo1: Could you post this yesterday so we can all have a good example of this "obvious reality"?

It's never been demonstrated, but it is possible to think it. So it exists conceptually, the same as any other thing.

KJ: This approach makes anything that has happened, such as your birth, or will happen, such as your death, unreal.

Bo1: I wasn`t born yesterday ya know :)

Once again you are projecting.
You are trying to interject your memory into the present. You are also trying to use predictive analysis to snatch reality from its grasp into your preconceived formula.

Did you experience your birth today?
Did you die today?

I can imagine what my birth was like, but I have no memories of actually experiencing it. Similarly, I can imagine that no more appearances will be forthcoming, on my death. Both of these are just guesses, not 100% certain, but reasonably valid.

However, I am 100% certain that what is happening, is happening. It's irrelevant whether these experiences are memories, imaginings, fantasies, dreams, hallucinations or remote-CTP-alien-waves (consciousness-transfer-protocol). I experience them all directly, and make up orderly time relationships as best fits.

I don't interpret Reality as things-that-aren't-real and things-that-are-real, because that contradicts my reasoning that Ultimate Reality is *all* things.

Is that not logical?

KJ: When you say, you as what was, does not exist, you are lying, because at the moment you conceive of it, you prove that it did exist as a forerunner to your present existence.

Bo1: Here we go again with the contradictions. If it was a forerunner is it existence?

No, there's no contradiction in saying a forerunner exists in the same existential fashion as an aftrunner. Both exist as concepts, that's all they ever are. And therefore, neither inherently exist, because they aren't anything more than conceptual.

Bo1: When I said "I did not exist", it was intended in context. It was not to be applied as an absolute, it was designed to emphasize.

You agree, then, that a forerunner exists relative to an aftrunner? And that an aftrunner exists relative to a forerunner? If you agree with both of these, then wouldn't it follow that any existence could not be absolute?

KJ: That is true even though the memory appears now. It is conceived of using a temporal construct, "the person that began this paragraph". In that way, it certainly does exist, and is real.

Bo1: It is only a premise for your formula of reality. You can use your memory all you want, it is not the building block of reality.

I think the best way to approach your point is to look at what Ultimate Reality is. Then, any errors can be easily dismantled, because Ultimate Reality is absolute. I'll assume you accept this. First, what do you think of this definition: ?

"Reality is all realities, meaning, everything, excluding nothing that can possibly exist."


Second, what do you think of this definition: ?

"Everything that has form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, is a part of Ultimate Reality."


And lastly, report to me your thoughts about this definition:

"All things exist relative to what they are not, such that Ultimate Reality - being absolute - cannot be a thing, with any form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, at all."

KJ: The fact that there is ultimately no boundary between any existence, means that Reality is one, and has no inherent separate existences, such as now, or then.

Bo1: Yup, thats what I said alright.

So, you agree then, that all experiences are valid, and all are experiences of timelessness?


-

[Beingof1]

I honor you KJones, your willpower will see you through. You are also unafraid to push the edge of the envelope.

You did not retire, even when what I was saying could be misunderstood as rude and lacking compassion, you demonstrated humility with conviction and heart.

I think it best at this point to continue our conversation in the future ;) - after rumination and digestion.

Namaste

[kjones]

I honor you KJones, your willpower will see you through. You are also unafraid to push the edge of the envelope.

You did not retire, even when what I was saying could be misunderstood as rude and lacking compassion, you demonstrated humility with conviction and heart.

Stop baulking and address my points, please.

I think it best at this point to continue our conversation in the future ;) - after rumination and digestion.

Namaste

Surely you are not running away? Am I to assume you prefer falling back on slogans, such as "be patient, don't judge, be compassionate"?


-

[Beingof1]

Well perhaps I did misjudge you. I thought you were being forthright, honest, and sincere. If you think I am 'stuck' and have no retort - carry on and you are the grand champion.

Your searing intellect was just to much for me.

I gave you everything you asked for - if you cannot see it, that is not my fault.

As one philosopher said - "be careful in debating the ignorant lest others be confused as to who is who".

[kjones]

I gave you everything you asked for - if you cannot see it, that is not my fault.

A few posts back, you said: "It is only a premise for your formula of reality. You can use your memory all you want, it is not the building block of reality."

In reply, I said: "I think the best way to approach your point is to look at what Ultimate Reality is. Then, any errors can be easily dismantled, because Ultimate Reality is absolute. I'll assume you accept this."

I then asked you to respond to three definitions about Reality (given again, for your convenience, below). If your understanding of Ultimate Reality is reliable, there's no reason why you shouldn't respond. Consider all those "future lives" who need more information to decide: are you just going to abandon them - effectively killing babies?

First, what do you think of this definition: ?

"Reality is all realities, meaning, everything, excluding nothing that can possibly exist."


Second, what do you think of this definition: ?

"Everything that has form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, is a part of Ultimate Reality."


And lastly, report to me your thoughts about this definition:

"All things exist relative to what they are not, such that Ultimate Reality - being absolute - cannot be a thing, with any form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, at all."

-

[Beingof1]

kjones:

If your understanding of Ultimate Reality is reliable, there's no reason why you shouldn't respond.

Except if you dismiss it out of hand because it is not an icon who is saying it. That is a waste of time.

Consider this, I have been contemplating these questions since before you were born. That is not to say chronological age has a trump card and I can still learn and grow (and yes from you), just meaning ponder my answers with more care, at least as much care as you take with your own thoughts.

Consider all those "future lives" who need more information to decide: are you just going to abandon them - effectively killing babies?

It is what preoccupies my mind almost entirely, I do occasionaly take a break however - lol

The Three Premises

"Reality is all realities, meaning, everything, excluding nothing that can possibly exist."

The premise is plural and then unified. The only reality that is possible in all possible worlds is your consciousness as there is nothing else that can be a unified set and excludes it as being a subset.

As I said "start with yourself" then you can know with accuracy what is true in all times and places.

"Everything that has form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, is a part of Ultimate Reality."

If you use the law of identity to apply to the whole you must first use something that is true in all possible worlds. That is where you begin, not where you end up.

You must find the fractal that is identical to the Ultimate Reality. All of the listings you gave are being considered by the only reality you can know or experience meaning your awareness.

"All things exist relative to what they are not, such that Ultimate Reality - being absolute - cannot be a thing, with any form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, at all."

All things exist realative to who and what you are, there is no other comparison that is accurate. This is why science can make incredible headway for everything except understanding who and what it is making the headway.

You begin with the fractal of all reality and work outward - you cannot begin with everything and work inward else your conclusion will bring a separated experience and truncate your understanding.

[Kelly Jones]

Except if you dismiss it out of hand because it is not an icon who is saying it.

The rational quality of one's thoughts are the only credentials worth considering.

KJ: Consider all those "future lives" who need more information to decide: are you just going to abandon them - effectively killing babies?

Bo1: It is what preoccupies my mind almost entirely, I do occasionaly take a break however - lol

You admit, after all, that you rely on memory, and planning for the future, to decide what to do, and how to interpret the meaning of what you read?

KJ: "Reality is all realities, meaning, everything, excluding nothing that can possibly exist."

Bo1: The premise is plural and then unified. The only reality that is possible in all possible worlds is your consciousness as there is nothing else that can be a unified set and excludes it as being a subset.

As I said "start with yourself" then you can know with accuracy what is true in all times and places.

Does this unified set called "your consciousness" include all possible consciousnesses?

KJ: "Everything that has form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, is a part of Ultimate Reality."

Bo1: If you use the law of identity to apply to the whole you must first use something that is true in all possible worlds. That is where you begin, not where you end up.

You must find the fractal that is identical to the Ultimate Reality. All of the listings you gave are being considered by the only reality you can know or experience meaning your awareness.

Are you suggesting that to know what is true for all possible realities, one must apply a particular thing, "x", that all possible realities have in common? It is actually impossible, for the reason that an "x" is a finite division of Reality, (it is not not-x), that can never be equivalent with everything. At the very least, there is not-x that is not in common with x.

KJ: "All things exist relative to what they are not, such that Ultimate Reality - being absolute - cannot be a thing, with any form, existence, appearance, properties, nature, characteristic, or conceptual reality, at all."

Bo1: All things exist realative to who and what you are, there is no other comparison that is accurate. This is why science can make incredible headway for everything except understanding who and what it is making the headway.

You begin with the fractal of all reality and work outward - you cannot begin with everything and work inward else your conclusion will bring a separated experience and truncate your understanding.

It seems you think "who you are" is a finite portion of Reality, and "not-who-you-are" is everything else. So, immediately, we can see that "everything" is the logical combination of these two constructs.

We can also see that all finite portions can be divided up again and again, which leads us to realise that (i) no division is ultimately real, and (ii) consciousness is not ultimately bounded.

So, any fractal we wish to conceive of, is ultimately inseparable from the whole, and lacks inherent existence on its own.


--

[Beingof1]

The rational quality of one's thoughts are the only credentials worth considering.

Good - then why the following post?

You admit, after all, that you rely on memory, and planning for the future, to decide what to do, and how to interpret the meaning of what you read?

I admit? I affirmed it in the above post.

Me:

No doubt we did in fact experience the past and we can learn and grow from these memories, but they are not reality at all. Our past assists us into the future as well as the present and so; the mind plays a game on itself and mixes or confuses the past with present reality.

Does this unified set called "your consciousness" include all possible consciousnesses?

How could it not?

Are you suggesting that to know what is true for all possible realities, one must apply a particular thing, "x", that all possible realities have in common? It is actually impossible, for the reason that an "x" is a finite division of Reality, (it is not not-x), that can never be equivalent with everything. At the very least, there is not-x that is not in common with x.

And who or what is considering "x" and "-x"?
Could you give me a comparison of something while excluding the thinker?

It seems you think "who you are" is a finite portion of Reality, and "not-who-you-are" is everything else. So, immediately, we can see that "everything" is the logical combination of these two constructs.

We can also see that all finite portions can be divided up again and again, which leads us to realise that (i) no division is ultimately real, and (ii) consciousness is not ultimately bounded.

So, any fractal we wish to conceive of, is ultimately inseparable from the whole, and lacks inherent existence on its own.

For the most part yes, a couple of conclusions however.

1- Who you are would be the only experience of what is as you cannot separate the observer or experiencer of reality from reality in and of itself. That is to say the full set of the universe must be the perceiver not what is being perceived.

This is the tricksey part of perception, it is to easy to project what is being perceived as distinct from the one perceiving. This is the beginning and not the conclusion as when the logic goes full circle it ends up where it began, with the observer.

2- Any fractal you conceive is still a construct of the mind and so it is a model at its best. The model cannot take the place of reality, reality can only be experienced not duplicated.

3- There is no inherent existence apart from experience and as the Buddhists say "the perceiver". So we see the experience in and of itself and we also see the perceiver of the experience. This has been called the activity and the stillness. Eternal flux being perceived by eternal stillness.

To enjoin these two great truths is to see the whole picture. Usually most will focus on one or the other and become imbalanced. True balance is to know that the eternal constant is change and so lacking inherent existence. Equally true is the perceiver of the eternal change that remains a constant (from every memory) without change. It has no beginning and no end and so trandscends existence.

[Kelly Jones]

-


My reply was delayed by some computer hickups. It's not quite sorted out, but I'm back on the rope for the time being.

If you use the law of identity to apply to the whole you must first use something that is true in all possible worlds. That is where you begin, not where you end up.

Actually, the law of identity applies to every thing, regardless of location, stage, nature of the something, or other fractalisations.

KJ: The rational quality of one's thoughts are the only credentials worth considering.

Bo1.1: Good - then why the following post?

KJ: You admit, after all, that you rely on memory, and planning for the future, to decide what to do, and how to interpret the meaning of what you read?

Bo1.2: I admit? I affirmed it in the above post.

A few posts back, you wrote:

"No doubt we did in fact experience the past and we can learn and grow from these memories, but they are not reality at all. Our past assists us into the future as well as the present and so; the mind plays a game on itself and mixes or confuses the past with present reality.

The emptiness I am discussing is the ever present unfolding of reality. The only one that has ever or will ever exist. This is true existence but the funny thing is the moment you try to perceive it - it is already history."


Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?

KJ: Does this unified set called "your consciousness" include all possible consciousnesses?

Bo1: How could it not?

Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?

KJ: Are you suggesting that to know what is true for all possible realities, one must apply a particular thing, "x", that all possible realities have in common? It is actually impossible, for the reason that an "x" is a finite division of Reality, (it is not not-x), that can never be equivalent with everything. At the very least, there is not-x that is not in common with x.

Bo1: And who or what is considering "x" and "-x"?
Could you give me a comparison of something while excluding the thinker?

If a thinker (an x) doesn't appear, and only a particular thing (an x) does appear, then there is only that particular thing, which is existing by contrast with "not-x".

Just the fact there are thoughts doesn't mean there is a thinker. A thinker, imagined as driving thoughts, is an organisational self-construct more than anything. It certainly can't originate the thoughts, since it appears as a thought (some x).

An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.

KJ: It seems you think "who you are" is a finite portion of Reality, and "not-who-you-are" is everything else. So, immediately, we can see that "everything" is the logical combination of these two constructs.

We can also see that all finite portions can be divided up again and again, which leads us to realise that (i) no division is ultimately real, and (ii) consciousness is not ultimately bounded.

So, any fractal we wish to conceive of, is ultimately inseparable from the whole, and lacks inherent existence on its own.



Bo1: For the most part yes, a couple of conclusions however.

1- Who you are would be the only experience of what is as you cannot separate the observer or experiencer of reality from reality in and of itself. That is to say the full set of the universe must be the perceiver not what is being perceived.

This is lazy thinking. You've defined all things as an observer, and then called Reality itself this observer. This is flawed because Reality is all things, therefore not a single thing.

When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.

This is the tricksey part of perception, it is to easy to project what is being perceived as distinct from the one perceiving. This is the beginning and not the conclusion as when the logic goes full circle it ends up where it began, with the observer.

The selves perceiving, or projecting, or being perceived, are all appearances. They are all manifestations of Reality. So, since the notion that the perceiver is really creating all appearances, requires that it creates from beyond appearances, means that the perceiver could never appear to mind at all. Thus, it logically cannot be responsible for Reality.

Bo1: 2- Any fractal you conceive is still a construct of the mind and so it is a model at its best. The model cannot take the place of reality, reality can only be experienced not duplicated.

Since you never experience anything other than consciousness, it is flawed to consider that it is a fractal, beyond which are other fractals. It is not a model for some greater Reality beyond the mind. The reasoning to support this truth is that a thing exists when it appears. Consciousness exists as appearances, so there are no other consciousnesses except whatever appears to exist in consciousness.

Bo1: 3- There is no inherent existence apart from experience and as the Buddhists say "the perceiver".

There's no inherent existence in anything, full stop. For experience, or the perceiver, to exist inherently, it could never be caused, and could never change. That is, there would be absolute stasis, which is impossible, since it requires at the very least a memory of change, to identify it comparatively.

Bo1: So we see the experience in and of itself and we also see the perceiver of the experience. This has been called the activity and the stillness. Eternal flux being perceived by eternal stillness.

No, no. The perceiver is just one more experience. Reality is not inherently an unmoving perceiver and moving perceptions.

There's a Zen koan that is easily misinterpreted that way, I did it myself:

"All day the temple pillars come and go. Why don't I move?"

What it means is that one's real self, that is formless, can't ever move, because there's no place where it isn't.


Jesus had the same truth in mind when he said,

"When you pick up the stone, I am there."

Bo1: To enjoin these two great truths is to see the whole picture. Usually most will focus on one or the other and become imbalanced. True balance is to know that the eternal constant is change and so lacking inherent existence. Equally true is the perceiver of the eternal change that remains a constant (from every memory) without change. It has no beginning and no end and so trandscends existence.

No, emptiness is not emptiness because of change. This view of impermanence fails to see that things don't inherently exist in the first place, to be able to move. This is why Reality is timeless, and has no beginning or end: it has never come into existence, so it cannot change.




--
edited a bracket

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones:

Actually, the law of identity applies to every thing, regardless of location, stage, nature of the something, or other fractalisations.

I know but thanks for clarifying.

Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?

Ill wait till you actually have a question to respond.

Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?

You have been getting some pretty good coaching.

I would say if a person throws a boomarang and it hits them in the head, its not the other persons fault, but thats just me.
Perhaps you could you tell me?

Just the fact there are thoughts doesn't mean there is a thinker.

Could you show me how to do that?

An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.

Ah - I am imagining I am reading your post.
What is reality again?

This is lazy thinking. You've defined all things as an observer, and then called Reality itself this observer. This is flawed because Reality is all things, therefore not a single thing.

Right - the one I am imagining - or is that reality?

Wait, am I experiencing reality or imagining I am responding to your post?

I am have a really hard time telling the difference, could you explain it?

When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.

Yup

The selves perceiving, or projecting, or being perceived, are all appearances. They are all manifestations of Reality. So, since the notion that the perceiver is really creating all appearances, requires that it creates from beyond appearances, means that the perceiver could never appear to mind at all. Thus, it logically cannot be responsible for Reality.

Pretty good questions from the man behind the curtain.

Could you show me what you are thinking?

You can`t; because it is logically impossible for you to think else it would appear and as you have demonstrated since thinking is beyond appearances it cannot appear to mind at all.

Conclusion - you are not thinking - logical impossibility.

But hey - who ever said logic had to make sense?

Since you never experience anything other than consciousness, it is flawed to consider that it is a fractal, beyond which are other fractals. It is not a model for some greater Reality beyond the mind. The reasoning to support this truth is that a thing exists when it appears. Consciousness exists as appearances, so there are no other consciousnesses except whatever appears to exist in consciousness.

Ok and alrighty then.

I seem to remember giving some hints, clarifications, and context.

Oh never mind, you are to busy, don`t let me interupt.

There's no inherent existence in anything, full stop. For experience, or the perceiver, to exist inherently, it could never be caused, and could never change. That is, there would be absolute stasis, which is impossible, since it requires at the very least a memory of change, to identify it comparatively.

Right - and we cannot violate our solemn oath and sworn allegiance to preconceived ideas else we will look like kinda funny - and the greatest sin is to not know everything.

Do you remember your childhood?
Who and what remembers your childood?

What it means is that one's real self, that is formless, can't ever move, because there's no place where it isn't.


Jesus had the same truth in mind when he said,

"When you pick up the stone, I am there."

Yup -thats what I said alright.

Hows your ping pong?


Good test - did I pass and what was my grade?

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: Actually, the law of identity applies to every thing, regardless of location, stage, nature of the something, or other fractalisations.

Bo1: I know but thanks for clarifying.

This is what the "thinker" is: an appearance that is identified in the same way anything is identified. There isn't a thinker apart from the identity of a thinker.

KJ: Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?

Bo1: Ill wait till you actually have a question to respond.

You tend to be quite moody. Any thoughts about that?

KJ: Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?

Bo1: Perhaps you could you tell me?

It's a straightforward question. Is this what you define emptiness as?

KJ: Just the fact there are thoughts doesn't mean there is a thinker.

Bo1: Could you show me how to do that?

Think about what the thinker ultimately is. Any appearance of a self, thinker, perceiver, etc. is an appearance. It can't possibly be really originating thoughts, thinking the thoughts. This is true because all things logically cannot be created by another thing that also appears, since that other thing is included in the former.

KJ: An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.

Bo1: Ah - I am imagining I am reading your post.
What is reality again?

Most people believed that their self is the "inner" and is somehow outside everything that appears in consciousness. They believe they are separate, and peering into the world. They believe that self is really there, even though it appears in consciousness the same as everything else.

Thus, one cannot use the self, nor any other "thing" as the grounding of Reality, but to understand that all things are equally empty and illusory.

KJ: This is lazy thinking. You've defined all things as an observer, and then called Reality itself this observer. This is flawed because Reality is all things, therefore not a single thing.

Bo1: Right - the one I am imagining - or is that reality?

Wait, am I experiencing reality or imagining I am responding to your post?

I am have a really hard time telling the difference, could you explain it?

There's a third option: that the self isn't really there at all.

KJ: When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.

Bo1: Yup

Is this agreement? If so, why hold that Reality is the observer, since any experience of an observer is a thing?

KJ: The selves perceiving, or projecting, or being perceived, are all appearances. They are all manifestations of Reality. So, since the notion that the perceiver is really creating all appearances, requires that it creates from beyond appearances, means that the perceiver could never appear to mind at all. Thus, it logically cannot be responsible for Reality.

Bo1: Pretty good questions from the man behind the curtain.

Could you show me what you are thinking?

You can`t; because it is logically impossible for you to think else it would appear and as you have demonstrated since thinking is beyond appearances it cannot appear to mind at all.

No, you twisted the meaning of my words. The thinker (a self imagined to originate thoughts) is believed to be creating thoughts. None of these things are beyond consciousness (obviously)!

For the thinker to logically be originating all thoughts, it would have to be beyond consciousness. This is why it isn't real.

Conclusion - you are not thinking - logical impossibility.

But hey - who ever said logic had to make sense?

No, you just misinterpreted my ideas.

KJ: Since you never experience anything other than consciousness, it is flawed to consider that it is a fractal, beyond which are other fractals. It is not a model for some greater Reality beyond the mind. The reasoning to support this truth is that a thing exists when it appears. Consciousness exists as appearances, so there are no other consciousnesses except whatever appears to exist in consciousness.

Bo1: Ok and alrighty then.

I seem to remember giving some hints, clarifications, and context.

Oh never mind, you are to busy, don`t let me interupt.

So far, you've mentioned that one must begin with a fractal to understand what is true for all things; the fractal is one's consciousness, which is all that ever exists, ie. all consciousnesses; and that emptiness is this unified set of all consciousnesses. Evidently, your reasoning is unsound.

This is the only reason you keep slipping around my straightforward questions. If you aren't prepared to support your arguments with sound reasoning, then you are spamming this forum with rubbish.

KJ: There's no inherent existence in anything, full stop. For experience, or the perceiver, to exist inherently, it could never be caused, and could never change. That is, there would be absolute stasis, which is impossible, since it requires at the very least a memory of change, to identify it comparatively.

Bo1: Right - and we cannot violate our solemn oath and sworn allegiance to preconceived ideas else we will look like kinda funny - and the greatest sin is to not know everything.

Do you remember your childhood?
Who and what remembers your childood?

I do. At the same time, I know I is an illusion. It is no different to any other thing that is experienced. You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept of using personal pronouns to communicate. I, he, she, you, they, are just figures of speech.

KJ: What it means is that one's real self, that is formless, can't ever move, because there's no place where it isn't.


Jesus had the same truth in mind when he said,

"When you pick up the stone, I am there."


Bo1: Yup -thats what I said alright.

Hows your ping pong?


Good test - did I pass and what was my grade?

It never takes long for the flakes to appear. It happens when their folly is exposed, and they return to clinging to coarser forms of egotism.


Edit: This has been an interesting demonstration of the meaning of "precariously perched".

-

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones,
Thank you for your time.

[Kelly Jones]

I note that you recently wrote that it's very easy to tear down the logic of those who believe, rather than think.

It stimulated me to write the following short essay.


How beliefs arise

Thoughts identify something (as what it is, reflexively). This process of identifying occurs so often, that identities quickly grow as the mind's vocabulary of things, like a dendritic branching-out. The very rapidity of thoughts generates a momentum, such that particular links harden. The result is that a particular thing is assumed to be "always so", out of habitual need.

Identities that aren't sounded out rationally show that reasoning is being degraded. This manifests as feelings, intuitions, hunches and other habits like using emotions to decide what a thing is. Belief is grown in a mind that is needy of comfort, and of experiencing familiar things. It has pain if suddenly exposed to unusual growth forces, and is like a tree with branches torn off by strong winds. Overall, belief is reduced by gradually exposing thoughts to the unusual growth force of correct, reasoned identities, also called truthfulness. This mind corrects mistaken identify (beliefs), step by painful step, by slowing the thought-links down to clarify the logical steps being taken, to see where the error is.


-

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones:

This is what the "thinker" is: an appearance that is identified in the same way anything is identified. There isn't a thinker apart from the identity of a thinker.

No matter how hard we look we will never find a "thinker" per se. In other words we do not find a "person" as an identity. We do find a source of thought however.

For example; Think of a snow capped mountain, who told your brain to think of a snow capped mountain?
Now, think of anything you choose, who told your brain to image the thought?

Our brain is the servant and not the master. We could say cause and effect introduced by comparisons. Burn the concept all the way down.

Think of white noise. Can you empty your mind of any comparisons? Can you go between the words and images?

Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?

It does.

Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?

A fractal is a whole in itself.
If you put a line through a triangle, you have a 'whole' triangle.

Are you experiencing a whole reality or a partial reality?

If a thinker (an x) doesn't appear, and only a particular thing (an x) does appear, then there is only that particular thing, which is existing by contrast with "not-x".

How does *X* and *-X* appear without perception? What is the source of the appearance?
Logic defines all perceptions through comparisons, what is the source of logic and comparisons?

Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone.

An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.

Unless we see behind the appearance and go to the root cause and effect. The resolving of the enigma is in the understanding that there is no being, not even a supremely great being, there is being in and of itself.

This means there is experience in a state of flux and a perceiver that has no memory, experience, or objective observation of beginning or end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind.

We could say it begins at birth, conception, or at some point but this is a projection as it is beyond any logical construct. None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.

The perceiver has never an end and continues ever present. It has no memory, experience, or objective observation of an end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind. It transmutates itself into perpetual consciousness. None has ever witnessed the end or cessation of consciousness.

It`s not an optical illusion. It just looks like one. - Joke

Most people believed that their self is the "inner" and is somehow outside everything that appears in consciousness. They believe they are separate, and peering into the world. They believe that self is really there, even though it appears in consciousness the same as everything else.

Thus, one cannot use the self, nor any other "thing" as the grounding of Reality, but to understand that all things are equally empty and illusory.

Right, and so the divorcing of the universe from the perceiver. There is not a single thing, appearance, experience, or being that is separate from the whole. Therefore the true self is the whole excluding nothing and including everything.

KJ: When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.

Bo1: Yup

KJ: Is this agreement? If so, why hold that Reality is the observer, since any experience of an observer is a thing?

Because reality continues and so does the observation of it.

For the thinker to logically be originating all thoughts, it would have to be beyond consciousness. This is why it isn't real.

Unless the source were beyond thought, then it defies the "thinker". Consciousness transcends thoughts.

So far, you've mentioned that one must begin with a fractal to understand what is true for all things; the fractal is one's consciousness, which is all that ever exists, ie. all consciousnesses; and that emptiness is this unified set of all consciousnesses.

The singularity of the universe is not multiple consciousness, it is singular in experience, observation, and logic.

Thoughts identify something (as what it is, reflexively). This process of identifying occurs so often, that identities quickly grow as the mind's vocabulary of things, like a dendritic branching-out. The very rapidity of thoughts generates a momentum, such that particular links harden. The result is that a particular thing is assumed to be "always so", out of habitual need.

This is why you must push beyond thought. Logical constructs are dependant upon comparisons. It certainly has its use to see whether we are in delusion and for this it an effective tool but it cannot define reality.

Nothing defines reality.


My apologies for the choppy post.

[Kelly Jones]

Beingo1,

You mentioned something like you were hoping I wasn't using a sword to cut off the heads of friends, by mistake, in the Mental Universe thread.

There are quite a few stories in spiritual literature about taking up one's sword. I can think of a few off-hand. There's Arjuna, who decided eventually, after some thought, that he would raise his sword Govinda against all his kin. And Manjusri had the same sword, of discrimination.

I decided a good icon would be one that reminded me to think logically, and to use a clean, direct thrust to pierce deep into the heart of delusion.

If it appears aggressive, probably that's because it takes quite a bit of discomfort to get used to wielding the sword of reason at all things. There's no better friend than a sword of clear, direct, truthful judgment.

---

: KJ: This is what the "thinker" is: an appearance that is identified in the same way anything is identified. There isn't a thinker apart from the identity of a thinker.

Bo1: No matter how hard we look we will never find a "thinker" per se. In other words we do not find a "person" as an identity. We do find a source of thought however. For example; Think of a snow capped mountain, who told your brain to think of a snow capped mountain? Now, think of anything you choose, who told your brain to image the thought?

You did. Since "you" appears in my consciousness, it's also a thought. Therefore it is not a source of thought. Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise there is no finite source for all things, since every finite thing is part of all things.

Think of white noise. Can you empty your mind of any comparisons? Can you go between the words and images?

I think you're trying to actually perceive the Infinite as something in consciousness. It makes you want to hold onto something like "empty your mind of all comparisons", when it isn't necessary or logically possible. Reality isn't a thing. Emptiness isn't an appearance.

Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?

Bo1: It does.

Have you changed your mind, or do you still think that memories are not reality itself?

Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?

Bo1: A fractal is a whole in itself. If you put a line through a triangle, you have a 'whole' triangle. Are you experiencing a whole reality or a partial reality?

You earlier used "fractal" to represent all consciousnesses. Is there only one, or more than one? Is there a fractal beyond the fractal?

KJ: If a thinker (an x) doesn't appear, and only a particular thing (an x) does appear, then there is only that particular thing, which is existing by contrast with "not-x".

Bo1: How does *X* and *-X* appear without perception? What is the source of the appearance?

It's straightforward. Appearances are things. Thus, the cause of all things cannot be a thing, because it cannot appear. Since it never appears, it doesn't exist, and therefore is not causal. Thus, only things are causes. I.e. ALL things are causes. The source of all things is everything: the Infinite. I.e no thing at all.

KJ: An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.

Bo1: Unless we see behind the appearance and go to the root cause and effect. The resolving of the enigma is in the understanding that there is no being, not even a supremely great being, there is being in and of itself.

This means there is experience in a state of flux and a perceiver that has no memory, experience, or objective observation of beginning or end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind.

We could say it begins at birth, conception, or at some point but this is a projection as it is beyond any logical construct. None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.

The perceiver has never an end and continues ever present. It has no memory, experience, or objective observation of an end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind. It transmutates itself into perpetual consciousness. None has ever witnessed the end or cessation of consciousness.

It`s not an optical illusion. It just looks like one. - Joke

You're going through unnecessary twists to understand consciousness. It's not a thing, constrained in some straightjacket of concepts. It is all concepts, full stop. Are you more interested in having bizarre experiences to empower your ego, than in understanding what's really true for all things?

KJ: Most people believed that their self is the "inner" and is somehow outside everything that appears in consciousness. They believe they are separate, and peering into the world. They believe that self is really there, even though it appears in consciousness the same as everything else.

Thus, one cannot use the self, nor any other "thing" as the grounding of Reality, but to understand that all things are equally empty and illusory.

Bo1: Right, and so the divorcing of the universe from the perceiver. There is not a single thing, appearance, experience, or being that is separate from the whole. Therefore the true self is the whole excluding nothing and including everything.

You don't need to "divorce the universe from the perceiver". If the perceiver appears, then that's what the universe has created in that moment. It's no different to any other creation, it's neither more illusory or more real. It's as lacking in inherent existence as absolutely every other thing. Selflessness means not having any attachment to any experiences, because the logical thought has turned up and been accepted (that also has been created by the universe), that nothing is really there to be held onto.

KJ: When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.

Bo1: Yup

KJ: Is this agreement? If so, why hold that Reality is the observer, since any experience of an observer is a thing?

Bo1: Because reality continues and so does the observation of it.

The observation is another experience, just one more creation of the universe. So it isn't itself Reality, but merely a thing. Reality is all things, not a single one.

KJ: For the thinker to logically be originating all thoughts, it would have to be beyond consciousness. This is why it isn't real.

Bo1: Unless the source were beyond thought, then it defies the "thinker". Consciousness transcends thoughts.

Again, only things appear in consciousness. So, the source of all things is not a thing, because otherwise it couldn't be responsible for everything. In other words, only the hidden aspect of Reality is responsible for the un-hidden (things). It never appears to mind, in exactly the same way that the Infinite itself never appears to mind (as a thing).

It's the ego (the delusion of inherent self-existence) that drives the yearning to find Reality as form.

KJ: So far, you've mentioned that one must begin with a fractal to understand what is true for all things; the fractal is one's consciousness, which is all that ever exists, ie. all consciousnesses; and that emptiness is this unified set of all consciousnesses.

Bo1: The singularity of the universe is not multiple consciousness, it is singular in experience, observation, and logic.

Alright, we'll throw out the "fractal" idea, since evidently it just means "everything". Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that there is only one thing in Reality, called "singular experience, observation, and logic" ? If so, you're quite mad!

KJ: Thoughts identify something (as what it is, reflexively). This process of identifying occurs so often, that identities quickly grow as the mind's vocabulary of things, like a dendritic branching-out. The very rapidity of thoughts generates a momentum, such that particular links harden. The result is that a particular thing is assumed to be "always so", out of habitual need.

Bo1: This is why you must push beyond thought. Logical constructs are dependant upon comparisons. It certainly has its use to see whether we are in delusion and for this it an effective tool but it cannot define reality. Nothing defines reality.

"Nothing defines reality" = sounds like a definition to me, and it's certainly a thing!

No, it's impossible for consciousness to have no thoughts at all, since by definition consciousness is of thoughts. Rather, one ought to detect which kinds of thoughts and identities are false (out of habitual need), and which are actually accurate (even if they are painful and hard to remember). Truthful logical thoughts certainly can define Reality, by comparing a definition for "thing" to a definition for "everything".


--

By the way, I've recently had another look at David Quinn's "The Wisdom of the Infinite". I noticed that quite a few of his clear, simple explanations would probably be of assistance to you, if you cared to have a look.

For instance, he addresses ideas like: the need to make logical judgments for spiritual health, as well giving quite a few tips about pitfalls people are likely to experience as they investigate Reality.

Have you had a look at it? I'd strongly recommend it, because it's really the best read I know about.


---

[DHodges]

Do not pursue fame; do not scheme; do not be an undertaker of projects; do not be a proprietor of wisdom. Embody to the fullest what has no end and wander where there is no trail. Hold on to all that you have received from Heaven but do not think you have gotten anything. Be empty, that is all.

This thought kind of stuck in my head: do not be an undertaker of projects. I am certainly guilty of taking on projects, but I never thought of it as a bad thing. If I am not working on a project, what am I doing? Nothing.

When the living start doing things, they are dead.

Dwelling in inaction, he scoffs at skill.

So, doing nothing, seeking stillness. What is there to achieve?

In the US, it seems we still have that old Protestant work ethic. Doing things is good. Certainly my boss at work thinks I should be doing something productive; and they are paying me for my time, so that’s pretty reasonable. Still, it’s not human nature that I would work for hours straight, thinking of nothing else except on lunch breaks. But I must always have a list of projects I am working on; I need to be able to justify my existence.

But even on a weekend, I have out my PDA, I plan what I want to get accomplished for the weekend. I make goals. I might have a woodworking project, or some musical thing I am working on, a motorcycle modification, or some yardwork. There's always something; and if not, I can make something up. I can do exercises, develop a skill.

I never thought of this as a bad thing: to be doing, to be achieving, to be creating, to be working toward some goal; to be working on a project.

So the wheels start turning. Why does Chuang Tzu say this? And why do I work so hard to keep myself busy? Is it out of an egotistical need to feel I have accomplished something? Or just to avoid boredom?

Or (even worse), is it because women like men who are ambitious, who are goal-oriented?

I even see that – if taking on projects is a thing to be avoided – that I would take that on as a project, I would put it in my PDA and schedule time for not-doing.

So it seems that the problem is not the projects – it is the mindset, the need to keep busy, perhaps a fear of boredom, the egotistical need to achieve things that are, in the end, meaningless.

Why not join with me in inaction, in tranquil quietude, in hushed purity, in harmony and leisure?

I think of leisure as doing something I enjoy - not as doing nothing.

All attempts to create something admirable are the weapons of evil. You may think you are practicing benevolence and righteousness, but in effect you will be creating a kind of artificiality. Where a model exists, copies will be made of it. Where success has been gained, boasting follows. Where debate exists, there will be outbreaks of
hostility. If you must do something, cultivate the sincerity which is in your breast and use it to respond without opposition to the true form of Heaven and earth.

It all comes back to ego, doesn't it? Am I doing something because it is admirable - because other people will like it - they might be impressed?

It is insidious.

[Kelly Jones]

Dave,

Funny you should have posted this, as I woke up this morning thinking about the egotistical nature of projects.

"All attempts to create something admirable are the weapons of evil. You may think you are practicing benevolence and righteousness, but in effect you will be creating a kind of artificiality. Where a model exists, copies will be made of it. Where success has been gained, boasting follows. Where debate exists, there will be outbreaks of hostility. If you must do something, cultivate the sincerity which is in your breast and use it to respond without opposition to the true form of Heaven and earth."

It all comes back to ego, doesn't it? Am I doing something because it is admirable - because other people will like it - they might be impressed?

I don't think Chuang Tzu's "do nothing" means do nothing at all. It's impossible in any case.

If someone expresses ill-thought nonsense, and no one points out that he or she is bull-shitting, it's not true that no one is doing anything about it, but rather, they're actively letting it persist. But if someone does pull him or her up, and points out the errors, there will be conflict and hostility as long as there is intellectual opposition to the true form of Reality. That opposition won't go away by doing nothing about it.

Similarly, it is not the projects, making of literature, or any other activity itself, that creates spiritual bankruptcy, and voids one of leisure, but the mentality of believing something is really and truly gained thereby. I.e. hostility towards the formlessness of Reality.

This is coming out of my experiences in trying to overcome the will to a spartan existence. It is actually much tougher to try to strengthen the mind to experience any environment, and not back down into conceiving of purity as material. It seems to be easier to cut off opportunities for attachments to form, but really, this is all mistaken. The entire health-body-mind-spirit brigade runs on this delusion, that goodness is embodied in the form of things. In my opinion, non-attachment isn't about abiding in a state of tranquillity, separated from worldliness and the chaos of creation.

As Hakuin's saying goes, "Meditation in the MIDDLE of activity, is zillions of times superior to meditation in a state of tranquillity."

In all honesty, I don't think it's possible to STOP doing things to avoid boredom or desire. That intellectually creates a false vacuum, and Nature doesn't stop at any edge. As I see it, one climbs above the intellectual cravings to look at them logically. This strips one's thoughts of false notions, such as the idea that there is truly some "one", some kind of being.


---

[Cory Duchesne]

Dhodges wrote,

It all comes back to ego, doesn't it? Am I doing something because it is admirable - because other people will like it - they might be impressed?

It is insidious.

Yes, what you revealed about yourself is pretty much how we all function behind the veneer of our pride. Some of us smother our envy, loneliness and boredom by means of woodworking, music, and maintenance, whereas others smother their envy, loneliness and boredom by means of cards, bingo, movies, art, drugs, gambling....

Desires to impress people are leaves growing from the branches of envy. The branches of envy of course extend from the trunk of boredom & loneliness which of course rests upon the roots of aesthetic titilation/worldy pleasure. The whole tree is fear. A poison tree indeed.

Would we desire to impress people if we ourselves were not imperssed by others? What are we impressed by? Why are we impressed by it? Why do we allow ourselves to be impressed? Is our boredom the outcome of our facination and our excitement?

Is chang-tzu suggesting that we end our facinations and excitements?

[Kelly Jones]

Dave,

On second thoughts, your post seems to be about karma. I agree with Cory, that wanting to please others really comes down to fearing a loss of power (which he calls excitement). Dealing with the will to power means understanding ego, and then dealing with karma (habits of egotism).

Here's what I've been trying, for what it's worth!

I've been trying to plan ahead, for when I actually recognise I'm in the grip of attachments. In fact, these are projects, because I don't like feeling like I can't plan to avoid problems. It's really just mental rehearsal to calm myself down. Events that get my head on fire, and heart pounding, are pretty common to humans, so it's all pretty robotic. It might be how to deal with thoughts of love and infatuation. Or what to think when someone breaks in late at night. Or what response is best if hit by a truck. Others, that are pretty big for me personally, are how to exercise or eat without "losing consciousness", and dealing with thoughts that my character is organically false and incapable of sustaining any deep thought. I haven't made any permanent changes overall, but this "project" is about helping myself take more decisive responsibility about changing. You may be miles ahead, but I thought I'd share the story anyway.

It seems to be about continuing to make life harder, to ensure one keeps growing, but not too difficult that one is overwhelmed and has a heart attack.

---


Cory wrote:

Would we desire to impress people if we ourselves were not imperssed by others? What are we impressed by? Why are we impressed by it? Why do we allow ourselves to be impressed? Is our boredom the outcome of our facination and our excitement?

Is chang-tzu suggesting that we end our facinations and excitements?

Such questions probably motivated the Love-Base, Kevin and Dan's collection of love poetry. It's really fascinating reading, because of what it reveals about the mind's ability to create fantastic delusions about things.

I've been wondering whether a good way to eat away at the instinct for love and infatuation, is to dedicate one's best writings about wisdom, to the object of infatuation. It might be a way of mocking the mood and object of love, by contrasting the urge to worship the thing, with a fullsome account of clear, nonattached consciousness.

Walter Lowrie seems to think Kierkegaard dedicated all his pseudonymous works to Regina (although he also quotes Kierkegaard as saying that none of his pseudonymous works actually reflected him, Kierkegaard, but, for instance, his demonic moods). I think Lowrie regarded Regina as Kierkegaard's sacrifice, like Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac, but I'm not sure whether that's true. Surely he wasn't that much in love with *her*, knowing the feminine nature as well as he did, but with love itself. That fits my story anyway.



-

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones:

By the way, I've recently had another look at David Quinn's "The Wisdom of the Infinite". I noticed that quite a few of his clear, simple explanations would probably be of assistance to you, if you cared to have a look.

I have read it, I have also read Kevin`s work and these writings are of substantial value. Anyone so devoted to truth is worth taking the time to ponder and contemplate.

I've been wondering whether a good way to eat away at the instinct for love and infatuation, is to dedicate one's best writings about wisdom, to the object of infatuation. It might be a way of mocking the mood and object of love, by contrasting the urge to worship the thing, with a fullsome account of clear, nonattached consciousness.

It is the poles of reflection indeed.
Forgiveness is the key; If we make up our minds to see clearly we use the tool of forgiveness.

If everyday we make up our mind to forgive ourself of a single memory that holds us in guilt, suffering, or attachment we eventually become non- attached to the memory.

We can still recall the memory but in non-attachment as forgiveness introduces innocence transcending into what the Christians call holiness.

If we make up our minds to forgive one other person each day for some past wrong, we experience compassion for this individual in non- attachment.

[Kelly Jones]

Personally, if I feel any emotions at all, I'd like to know what the attachment is, that is causing it. The probability of properly addressing the core of attachment increases that way.

This is why judgment is healthy: it helps remove the stains of the mind. The point is to try to make sure one's motivation is pure.

I've been particularly inspired by this passage from The Wisdom of the Infinite lately:

"Together we must learn all, we must learn to climb above ourselves to ourselves, and cloudlessly to smile - Cloudlessly to smile down, shining eyed and very remote, when beneath us violence and purpose and guilt steam like rain."

- Friedrich Nietzsche


I am known to be quite a judgmental person, so the question is sometimes put to me that if I believe everything is caused, including all human behaviour, then why am I so condemning of others? Why am I critical of those who avoid being truthful and choose to pursue less lofty paths in life instead?

I usually answer this by pointing out that the process of making judgments is a natural function of the mind. In its purest form, judgment is simply the act of apprehending the truth of a situation. It is what the mind does naturally when unencumbered by egotism, bias, prejudice, dogmatism, insecurity, fear, anger, and all of the other distorting forces which come into play whenever one has strong emotional attachments. Making a judgment about a certain kind of behaviour, whether it be displayed in other people or in oneself, is no different to making a judgment about the validity of 1+1=2. It is simply the act of accepting reality as it is.

This kind of judgmentalism should not be confused with moral judgmentalism, as displayed by fundamentalist Christians and haughty matrons. Moral judgmentalism is essentially an expression of contempt by self-righteous individuals and rarely has anything to do with the pure act of discerning truth. Whenever I make a judgment about a certain kind of behaviour, I am always aware that the person involved is fully caused to behave in the way that he does and therefore fundamentally innocent and blameless. At bottom, we are all just puppets on the string of Nature. She is the sole determiner of everything that happens and ultimately we have no say in the matter. All we can do is go along for the ride - if Nature allows us to.

Judging human behaviour, in its purest form, is no different to judging anything else in the Universe. One can examine a bacteria-infested tree, for example, and correctly declare that it is diseased. Such a judgment is relatively egoless and contains no moral import at all. There is no suggestion that one is blaming the tree in any way. One is simply acknowledging a fact. The tree, due to its causes, is unhealthy. It does not make the tree inferior in an ultimate sense. It may be inferior to other trees in terms of health, but nevertheless it is still a perfect manifestation of Reality, as is the bacteria which infested the tree. It still continues to possess the same level of ultimate significance as any other object in existence.

One constantly hears from religious and spiritual people that we should be non-judgmental, particularly towards other people. However, this is very naïve and foolish. Not only is it impossible for us to refrain from making judgments while remaining conscious, but the very attempt to be non-judgmental constitutes an act of violence towards one’s own mind. It is an attempt to circumvent the mind’s natural inclination for making assessments, which is a form of madness.

In my experience, it is usually insecure, feminine-minded people who chant the mantra of non-judgmentalism the loudest. It is very prevalent in the New Age movement and in modern Buddhism and Hinduism, all of them very feminine religions. In wanting people to be non-judgmental they are merely expressing their desire not to be judged themselves. Their self-esteem is so wrapped up in what other people think of them that they are overcome by the desire to put a halt to everyone’s thought processes, just so that they may never be judged in a negative light. It is a form of petty selfishness on their parts.

We do not need to pander to this kind of insecurity and cowardice. Such pandering is unhealthy from a spiritual perspective. It diminishes human consciousness and creates a barrier between us and truth. If we allow the mind’s natural ability to apprehend truth to be constantly undermined by the desire not to hurt people with our judgments, then it will gradually fall into a state of atrophy and we will be spiritually dead.

Rather than trying to cease being judgmental, our goal should be to ensure that our motivation for making judgments is pure, and that our judgments are always true. And that can only come about by improving the quality of our thought and eliminating all traces of egotism from our actions. The pure man who exercises his faculties for judgment to the fullest is a rare treasure indeed. He openly articulates the truths that nobody wants to hear. Although evil people hate him, he acts as our conscience in this overly-fake world of ours. Rather than killing him off, we should all become like him.

--