the underground man

[RobertGreenSky]

Only an egomaniac would try to reverse an entire millenia-long spiritual tradition and turn it on its head merely in order to present his own attachment to thought as "enlightenment."

- Unidian

That's two plus millennia to you, buddy.

[Unidian]

What's a millennium or two between friends?

[Kelly Jones]

and drop every attachment,

dosn't this just happen naturally...without effort ?

It happens naturally, IF one is caused to have an uncompromising will to truth. Everything is natural, but not everyone is naturally inclined towards bodhicitta.

Effortless? Not in the sense of effort-less wishful thinking.


.

[Kelly Jones]

All thoughts are inherently dualistic. The non-dual cannot be apprehended by thought. However, non-duality is the true nature of awareness. Thought distracts from direct awareness. Of course, it is possible to be aware of one's thoughts without engaging with them, and that practice is called meditation.

I'm seeing a pattern.

Your view:
- ALL thoughts are inherently egotistical because predicated on an I.
- Wisdom is in contrast to egotism.

Problem:
Evidently, some thoughts are capable of defining wisdom (absence of egotism) perfectly well. Or you wouldn't have offered the above. So the first proposition contradicts the fact of the second.

Your amended view:
- ALL thoughts are inherently dualistic.
- Awareness is nondual, and is in contrast to thoughts.

Problem:
Evidently, some thoughts are capable of defining awareness (absence of dualism) perfectly well. Or you wouldn't have offered the second proposition. So, again, the first proposition contradicts the fact of the second.

What's the next amendment?


.

[Unidian]

Any thoughts are potentially capable of pointing toward (or away from) that which is beyond thought.

In your egotism, you'd like to imagine me being forced by your superior QRS logic to make amendments and concessions - but in reality, that has always been my position, as it is that of the historical Eastern writers.

Millenia of experience have shown that the thoughts and concepts which happen to most efficiently and plainly point toward the trans-conceptual are those recorded by the historical masters. However, Quinnlogists such as yourself would have us believe that in the person and the writings of Quinn Jong-Il, we now have an ever better pointer.

Of course, it's quite a bold claim, and you'd be mad not to expect considerable skepticism - which is all Robert and I are giving you.

[David Quinn]

Unidian wrote:They are, but they are also an aspect of immediate reality which tends to distract us from the rest of it - just as the ego, when it operates, replaces all else as the sole focus of consciousness.

DQ: Here, you seem to be equating losing consciousness of the Tao with that of thoughts distacting us from the rest of immediate reality. Is that correct?

Kinda. IMO, the trick is to realize that the non-dual Tao, due to its absolute infinite nature, contains within itself its own negation. And what is that negation? Duality. But what is duality? Nothing more than the product of thought - naming, dividing, conceptualizing, etc.
So, thought is the negation of Tao.

Okay, thanks for the more considered response. Let's see if I have understood you correctly:

If the Tao is the "rest of immediate reality" or "immediate reality sans thought", then the idea that "thought is the negation of the Tao" translates as "thought is the negation of the rest of immediate reality"..... which doesn't make sense.

Let's try again. If duality is the product of thought, and if the non-dual Tao is the rest of immediate reality, then .... hmm, no, this doesn't make any sense either.

Tell me, why do you divide things up dualistically into thought and the rest of immediate reality and then proceed to label the latter as the Tao?

All thoughts are inherently dualistic. The non-dual cannot be apprehended by thought. However, non-duality is the true nature of awareness. Thought distracts from direct awareness.

What does "direct awareness" mean? Directly aware of what exactly?

-

[Unidian]

Okay, thanks for the more considered response. Let's see if I have understood you correctly:

If the Tao is the "rest of immediate reality" or "immediate reality sans thought", then the idea that "thought is the negation of the Tao" translates as "thought is the negation of the rest of immediate reality"..... which doesn't make sense.

Why not?

If it doesn't make sense, then whence meditation? Practice would be utterly pointless if it did not make sense.

Let's try again. If duality is the product of thought, and if the non-dual Tao is the rest of immediate reality, then .... hmm, no, this doesn't make any sense either.

Why not? Perhaps rather than "try again," you should chiggity check yourself before you wriggity wreck yourself. What you are claiming "does not make sense" is the basis of almost all Eastern spiritual practice.

Tell me, why do you divide things up dualistically into thought and the rest of immediate reality and then proceed to label the latter as the Tao?

Beeyotch, I don't label anything as the Tao. You name it, it ain't the Tao. That's kinda the whole point of Laozi Chapter One, Line One - the very first words written in the Laozi and the ones you can't manage to get past, as Robert has pointed out.

Stupid-Ass House Nigga!

What does "direct awareness" mean? Directly aware of what exactly?

Oh dear Weininger, you really aren't boarding the clue train, are you? You want me to label the ineffable? OK, no problem:

Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Beeyotch, I don't label anything as the Tao. You name it, it ain't the Tao.

So you say the Tao is indivisible, and since naming and thinking divides, it cannot be Tao?

But since one cannot pull anything apart from Tao, not really, then what is this word? It's also indivisible, unnamed Tao.

This is why the Tao can be named and not be named. The whole division finds place as part of Tao, as its self-expression. Yet there's still the issue of skill. Divisions are not arbitrary and meaningless, they have their causes, they have their consequences, which all contribute to their full meaning.

[David Quinn]

Okay, thanks for the more considered response. Let's see if I have understood you correctly:

If the Tao is the "rest of immediate reality" or "immediate reality sans thought", then the idea that "thought is the negation of the Tao" translates as "thought is the negation of the rest of immediate reality"..... which doesn't make sense.

Why not?

Because if you divide reality up into thought and the rest of immediate reality, then thought becomes a positive creative agent of the rest of immediate reality, not a negator of it. The rest of immediate reality and thought are two dualities that create each other.

Let's try again. If duality is the product of thought, and if the non-dual Tao is the rest of immediate reality, then .... hmm, no, this doesn't make any sense either.

Why not?

Do you really believe it makes sense to equate the non-dual Tao with the dualistic creation labelled "the rest of immediate reality"?

Perhaps rather than "try again," you should chiggity check yourself before you wriggity wreck yourself. What you are claiming "does not make sense" is the basis of almost all Eastern spiritual practice.

Only of the fraudulent kind. You've got a neat trick happening there. Think as sloppily as you like and then, whenever you are called into account for it, claim that such sloppiness has the blessing of Lao Tzu. I've met a few Christians who employ this trick, except for them the blessing comes from God or the pope.

Tell me, why do you divide things up dualistically into thought and the rest of immediate reality and then proceed to label the latter as the Tao?

Beeyotch, I don't label anything as the Tao.

You claim you don't, yes, but in reality you do. When you equate "losing consciousness of the Tao" with that of thought distracting us from the rest of immediate reality, then you are in effect labelling the rest of immediate reality as the Tao.

What does "direct awareness" mean? Directly aware of what exactly?

Oh dear Weininger, you really aren't boarding the clue train, are you?

I'm asking a serious question. I'm very curious about it, and I'm sure others are as well. How do you know when you are "directly aware"? What are the signs? What are you aware of during this time that you're not aware of at other times?

-

[Tomas]

As Jesus said, "Those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me [for Truth] will find it."

Aristotle taught that the highest human happiness is the intellectual contemplation of truth.

Aquinas defined truth as: "The conformity of the mind with what is."

When one accepts that truth is not something we make up individually, then finding out "what really is" outside of our own opinions and feelings becomes imperative in order to not live a life that is meaningless.

We instinctively grasp that truthfulness is at the heart of human credibility.

[Kelly Jones]

That's not true! ;-)

But really. Joking aside.

Telling the truth for most people only amounts to worldly things, like the "important truth" of a flood cutting off the road head, or the "important truth" of which bank has the lowest interest rates, or the "important truth" of confessing an extra-marrital affair. That "heart of human credibility" is a desire for others not to get in your way by sabotaging your worldly comfort. It's got nothing to do with Truth. Ie. nonduality: how things really are.


.

[Talking Ass]

David's quote: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me will find it."

Tomas added: Aristotle taught that the highest human happiness is the intellectual contemplation of truth.

and

Aquinas defined truth as: "The conformity of the mind with what is."

and

When one accepts that truth is not something we make up individually, then finding out "what really is" outside of our own opinions and feelings becomes imperative in order to not live a life that is meaningless.

and

We instinctively grasp that truthfulness is at the heart of human credibility.

The Pauline conception is that all things are God's creation. God is intimately connected with his creation, especially with 'all flesh'. The notion of 'the flesh' is a Hebrew concept. We humans share commonality with each other and with all living things because we are 'flesh'. Fleshiness is our condition. Humans have a unique position in the creation. Somehow, they reflect the creator in a distinct way. One assumes the 'similarity' is internal, spiritual, mental, emotional, rational: all those things that make us us. This 'quality' that makes us us is exclusively God's. We are men in this sense because of our relatedness with God.

The paradigm of 'revelation' at the heart of Judaism and Christianity comes from an invisible quarter. The 'flesh' reacts or responds to something 'outside' of it. God 'rescues' man from a condition of being unconscious in the 'flesh', in a flesh-condition, not unlike 'materialism'. To 'lose oneself' is to surrender the willful condition of 'fleshiness' and to be 'called to' or attracted by something higher. One loses that condition but 'finds' a whole other relationship. It is not a recommendation but a command. (Unfortunate for those who invest in exclusive 'free-will' for man).

(It is impossible to have a relationship with Truth (as with a conscious being) since Truth is merely a concept. It is not alive, it is inert).

Jews and Christians see 'higher mind' as still an aspect of the 'flesh condition' (the word for 'flesh' in Greek is 'σαρξ', 'sarz'). To live and exist in the 'flesh' condition, at whatever level of it, without a line of communication with the originator of that which makes us human (consciousness, awareness, likeness)---which is to say God, 'living God', et cetera, is still just an aspect or condition of an existence 'κατα σαρκα' (kata sarka)---'according to the flesh'. This is one of the main areas of dispute between Hebrew-Christian and Greek (philosopher). According to this view, you could 'come upon' or 'assemble' all sorts of human knowledge, but if it is not 'under the rulership' of that which originated all consciousness, and that which rules it, directs it, and fulfills it, then it is still just a condition of living 'κατα σαρκα'.

Aristotle certainly proposed that the highest human happiness is to be found in intellectual contemplation of truth. But according to Jews and Christians that 'truth' is still only of a high 'κατα σαρκα' order. Christians and Jews are obviously concerned for a whole condition of man which is represented by The Fall. So, they would tend not to have so much faith in man's 'κατα σαρκα' abilities. The Fall, of course, has been rendered literally, obviously. It needn't be, so but it is really a bit of a problem to metaphorize it. It seems to require metaphysical backflips...

Aquinas supposed that all was 'σαρξ' except the mind of man, the higher reasoning ability of man, which he saw as uniquely divine. All the rest of man was 'fallen' but the mind not, or less so. 'Free' in a sense the flesh-restraints or limitations. Though Christian, he 'gave power' to intellect and allowed it to roam free. Or more to the point, to assert its independance.

There are all sorts of 'truths' ('κατα σαρκα') that can be discovered and employed. But what is discovered through that endeavor, and without the Magical Element, the 'quickener of consciousness', is still 'κατα σαρκα'.

A so-called 'materialist outlook', according to the scientific paradigm, could possibly be called a Greek creation, since it is essentially the Greek mind that opened up those methods and hence into a discover and definition of the world in those terms. Aristotle, if I am not incorrect, supposed that the mind is a direct mirror of all physical relationships that exist in the known and visible world. Intelligence is part and parcel of the mind and does not arise 'outside' of it. So, according to Arsitotle (in Physics) perception of truth is a question of perception of true relationships, and that is I think where 'A is A' comes in for the local Geniuses.

But the Jewish-Christian 'world-view' derives from another set of presuppositions. In that view, 'God' or divine consciousness, and following the 'commands' of God is the way to 'complete' the flesh condition. This completion comes about through cooperation with 'God' and recognizing non-independance.

What I personally think (though I do indeed recognize how some of these ideas appear absolutely impossible to a certain sort of mind and temperment, and in a sense I share that view because of my own mind and temperment) is that Quinn and others have no means to apprehend, describe, trace, or perceive a 'divinity' that 'rules' human consciousness. We do indeed 'make it all up' according to them. When they refer to God all they mean is all the stuff that is around us, which is also what Aristotle meant but did not call it God but merely 'κοσμος' (kosmos). They have been 'caused' to reject the paradigm that defines Judeo-Christian view, and so this whole view is delusional, deranged and inconceivable. BUT, they are not withough a mysterious mystical tendency, and so they 'reinvent' it in another way. They are still, fundamentally, religious persons though (it seems to me). Kelly for example establsihed as penitent relationship, not to God (like in the old days) but to 'Truth'.

I think it is really important to see clearly the complete materialistic platform of their position, as well as the role they give to reason. I also think that when Quinn speaks of 'burning the page' he means everything and anything (that would include Kierkegaard BTW) borne out of such a religious apprehension of reality. It has to de excised in the individual (destroyed) and should also be excised from the world.

Some may wonder: Wow, man. You are turning INTO one---say some sort of dogmatic Jew or neo-Christian (I do admire Protestantism), but I am attempting to see 'back to its essence' and not only to the form. (And the form is sometimes utterly horrible).

The 'core meaning' of the Jesus-quote (not to be confused with a Jesus-snare, heh heh) (according to me) is not about Truth as an abstract (Greek) perception or position of the mind, but of a relationship to a living personality. That is, everything that Quinn (and others, and sometimes for good reasons; intelligible reasons) will not allow. It CAN'T be that way.

[Kelly Jones]

This Impersonal - Personal dichotomy is something you've made up, Alex. It's not actually there.


.

[Talking Ass]

It seems to me that indeed it is (there). Explain yourself, if you can.

[Kelly Jones]

It only exists in your imagination.

[Talking Ass]

That is just opinion.

(What happened to your dot?)

[Blair]

It's all in your head, Ass.

Shadow-boxing I call it.

Combating an enemy that is not really there.

Projection is the common psych term.

The enemy is your self.

[Tomas]

David's quote: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me [the Truth] will find it."

Tomas added: Aristotle taught that the highest human happiness is the intellectual contemplation of truth.

and

Aquinas defined truth as: "The conformity of the mind with what is."

and

When one accepts that truth is not something we make up individually, then finding out "what really is" outside of our own opinions and feelings becomes imperative in order to not live a life that is meaningless.

and

We instinctively grasp that truthfulness is at the heart of human credibility.

The Pauline conception is that all things are God's creation. God is intimately connected with his creation, especially with 'all flesh'. The notion of 'the flesh' is a Hebrew concept. We humans share commonality with each other and with all living things because we are 'flesh'. Fleshiness is our condition. Humans have a unique position in the creation. Somehow, they reflect the creator in a distinct way. One assumes the 'similarity' is internal, spiritual, mental, emotional, rational: all those things that make us us. This 'quality' that makes us us is exclusively God's. We are men in this sense because of our relatedness with God.

The paradigm of 'revelation' at the heart of Judaism and Christianity comes from an invisible quarter. The 'flesh' reacts or responds to something 'outside' of it. God 'rescues' man from a condition of being unconscious in the 'flesh', in a flesh-condition, not unlike 'materialism'. To 'lose oneself' is to surrender the willful condition of 'fleshiness' and to be 'called to' or attracted by something higher. One loses that condition but 'finds' a whole other relationship. It is not a recommendation but a command. (Unfortunate for those who invest in exclusive 'free-will' for man).

(It is impossible to have a relationship with Truth (as with a conscious being) since Truth is merely a concept. It is not alive, it is inert).

Jews and Christians see 'higher mind' as still an aspect of the 'flesh condition' (the word for 'flesh' in Greek is 'σαρξ', 'sarz'). To live and exist in the 'flesh' condition, at whatever level of it, without a line of communication with the originator of that which makes us human (consciousness, awareness, likeness)---which is to say God, 'living God', et cetera, is still just an aspect or condition of an existence 'κατα σαρκα' (kata sarka)---'according to the flesh'. This is one of the main areas of dispute between Hebrew-Christian and Greek (philosopher). According to this view, you could 'come upon' or 'assemble' all sorts of human knowledge, but if it is not 'under the rulership' of that which originated all consciousness, and that which rules it, directs it, and fulfills it, then it is still just a condition of living 'κατα σαρκα'.

Aristotle certainly proposed that the highest human happiness is to be found in intellectual contemplation of truth. But according to Jews and Christians that 'truth' is still only of a high 'κατα σαρκα' order. Christians and Jews are obviously concerned for a whole condition of man which is represented by The Fall. So, they would tend not to have so much faith in man's 'κατα σαρκα' abilities. The Fall, of course, has been rendered literally, obviously. It needn't be, so but it is really a bit of a problem to metaphorize it. It seems to require metaphysical backflips...

Aquinas supposed that all was 'σαρξ' except the mind of man, the higher reasoning ability of man, which he saw as uniquely divine. All the rest of man was 'fallen' but the mind not, or less so. 'Free' in a sense the flesh-restraints or limitations. Though Christian, he 'gave power' to intellect and allowed it to roam free. Or more to the point, to assert its independance.

There are all sorts of 'truths' ('κατα σαρκα') that can be discovered and employed. But what is discovered through that endeavor, and without the Magical Element, the 'quickener of consciousness', is still 'κατα σαρκα'.

A so-called 'materialist outlook', according to the scientific paradigm, could possibly be called a Greek creation, since it is essentially the Greek mind that opened up those methods and hence into a discover and definition of the world in those terms. Aristotle, if I am not incorrect, supposed that the mind is a direct mirror of all physical relationships that exist in the known and visible world. Intelligence is part and parcel of the mind and does not arise 'outside' of it. So, according to Arsitotle (in Physics) perception of truth is a question of perception of true relationships, and that is I think where 'A is A' comes in for the local Geniuses.

But the Jewish-Christian 'world-view' derives from another set of presuppositions. In that view, 'God' or divine consciousness, and following the 'commands' of God is the way to 'complete' the flesh condition. This completion comes about through cooperation with 'God' and recognizing non-independance.

What I personally think (though I do indeed recognize how some of these ideas appear absolutely impossible to a certain sort of mind and temperment, and in a sense I share that view because of my own mind and temperment) is that Quinn and others have no means to apprehend, describe, trace, or perceive a 'divinity' that 'rules' human consciousness. We do indeed 'make it all up' according to them. When they refer to God all they mean is all the stuff that is around us, which is also what Aristotle meant but did not call it God but merely 'κοσμος' (kosmos). They have been 'caused' to reject the paradigm that defines Judeo-Christian view, and so this whole view is delusional, deranged and inconceivable. BUT, they are not withough a mysterious mystical tendency, and so they 'reinvent' it in another way. They are still, fundamentally, religious persons though (it seems to me). Kelly for example establsihed as penitent relationship, not to God (like in the old days) but to 'Truth'.

I think it is really important to see clearly the complete materialistic platform of their position, as well as the role they give to reason. I also think that when Quinn speaks of 'burning the page' he means everything and anything (that would include Kierkegaard BTW) borne out of such a religious apprehension of reality. It has to de excised in the individual (destroyed) and should also be excised from the world.

Some may wonder: Wow, man. You are turning INTO one---say some sort of dogmatic Jew or neo-Christian (I do admire Protestantism), but I am attempting to see 'back to its essence' and not only to the form. (And the form is sometimes utterly horrible).

The 'core meaning' of the Jesus-quote (not to be confused with a Jesus-snare, heh heh) (according to me) is not about Truth as an abstract (Greek) perception or position of the mind, but of a relationship to a living personality. That is, everything that Quinn (and others, and sometimes for good reasons; intelligible reasons) will not allow. It CAN'T be that way.

Alex, mostly appreciate your honesty and also the well thought out reply :-)

Aristotle & Aquinas are a couple of my Top 10 (100?) but moreso Aquinas.

NOTE: Added brackets and reinserted [the Truth] to David's words at top.

As the fictional Mexican bandit Calero says, "If people act
like sheep, it's probably sacrilegious not to shear them."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

not about Truth as an abstract (Greek) perception or position of the mind, but of a relationship to a living personality.

There are two types of truths, one that is "position" and one that is the ability to position, which would more or less form the very idea of what mind is, what mind does.

This second truth is that relationship to organic, living nature and one could easily mirror ones cultural or personal image into it, as kind of perversion, and not making it necessarily false. All mirrors ask to be cracked though and then what do you see?

By the way, Judaism was very much about the dismissal of the multitude of images, which Islam took one extreme further. But forms always keep arising nevertheless; this is why prophets keep arising as well.

[AlyOshA]

Hi Kelly,

I agree with all of your previous statements concluding with this:

Truth is the very last attachment to be challenged.

So my question for you is in what way does one finally challenge "truth"? Is there a method or can it not be articulated because the very act of articulation brings it back to the realms of "truth"?

[Kelly Jones]

It's the same "method" as I expressed earlier, of recognising the emptiness of all things. But one won't get to the final stage of challenging truth without knowing deeply the reality of all things, that is, being able to reflect this recognition back onto itself. This is an extremely rare skill, so while speculating about it may be a comfort, it's not going to have any reality unless it is something one knows from habit.

More often than not, people are all too ready to give up reasoning and thinking. They believe they are challenging "truth" when in reality they are simply lazy and too irrational to know, and even too lazy to know they are too lazy.

For instance, one pitfall for many beginner-thinkers is the belief that the spontaneity that arises on abandoning all concepts and truths, on recognising emptiness (the nondual and formless nature of all things), should mean stopping thinking or articulating concepts and truths. It's a belief that enlightened awareness is somehow magical, and doesn't require thought. That one has knowledge without actual conscious ideas of identity. That emptiness means nothingness - just go about your everyday business, "cut wood and carry water", and don't think any more. This is foolish.

The thing to grasp is that all things, all concepts, are already empty of inherent existence. Enlightenment doesn't mean stopping thinking. If one is "challenging truth" by not thinking about any truths, one will become more mentally vague, vacuous, and irrational as a result. This is an obvious sign that one has tried to run when one doesn't know how to crawl.


..

[AlyOshA]

recognizing the emptiness of all things

Maybe you have simplified this statement because you have discussed this many times in the past in exhaustive detail - so forgive me if I pick apart what you are saying a bit to get caught up to speed with how you "really" view things. I am guessing that there is more to it than just recognizing the emptiness of all things. Right? Do you mean the emptiness of "finite" and dualistic things, do you mean the emptiness of things because they don't really exist, or are you referring to emptiness as the inherent, ever-present, all-pervading quintessence of all existence? Emptiness implies a specific aspect of the "totality" so wouldn't one really have to recognize the fullness, completeness, eternal nature of all things that inherently don't exist?

unless it is something one knows from habit

Are you sure "habit" is the right word for this? Habit sounds like a conditioned reflex - an artificial understanding the way that Pavlov's dogs habitually come for food when the bell is rang (ie training oneself to automatically do something without having to think about it). Wouldn't it be better that the understanding need not to be understood because it is verified through experience in every eternal moment of reality?

More often than not, people are all too ready to give up reasoning and thinking. They believe they are challenging "truth" when in reality they are simply lazy and too irrational to know, and even too lazy to know they are too lazy.

This is probably true but not very relevant to our current discussion. Unless you suspect that by saying this unknowingly lazy people that read this will recognize their laziness.

For instance, one pitfall for many beginner-thinkers is the belief that the spontaneity that arises on abandoning all concepts and truths, on recognising emptiness (the nondual and formless nature of all things), should mean stopping thinking or articulating concepts and truths. It's a belief that enlightened awareness is somehow magical, and doesn't require thought. That one has knowledge without actual conscious ideas of identity. That emptiness means nothingness - just go about your everyday business, "cut wood and carry water", and don't think any more. This is foolish.

This statement is bringing this discussion to an important topic one most likely pontificated and debated at great lengths on this forum (beyond what I've read here). I am guessing you are referring to several things, one is the concept of living in the now (as an Echart Tolle or other new age spiritualists like to call it) in which one experiences the eternal nature of every moment unfiltered by opinions, bias, mental movies, over-analysis and so forth - or one might say the present moment free of delusion. Also you made reference to the zen statement ""Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water."? I am guessing that you are not criticizing the saying but rather criticizing those who think they've found enlightenment by preventing themselves from thinking about it further. It also sounds like you are critical of many of the meditation disciplines that most eastern philosophies incorporate ie Buddhist mindfulness practices, Zazen, Taoist microcosmic orbit, Kundalini - spiritual disciplines of that sort. Am I right that you consider them unnecessary or not useful? Certainly we are both in agreement that the only way to achieve anything is by giving the absolute entirety of your effort, everything, including what you think is your "life" and your "identity" towards obtaining the only "truth". So all the reference to people half-assing these issues, thinking they've obtained something prematurely, running when they can't even walk is not really necessary to discuss. I would rather see clearly what you think this type of enlightenment entails and why you discredit other approaches.

[Kelly Jones]

So you mean the emptiness of "finite" and dualistic things,

Yes. All things are finite, and empty of inherent existence.

Emptiness implies a specific aspect of the "totality"

For me it implies dropping the habit of looking for the Totality.

Habit sounds like a conditioned reflex - an artificial understanding the way that Pavlov's dogs habitually come for food when the bell is rang (ie training oneself to automatically do something without having to think about it).

For me, the sheer force of habit of developing a conscious, rational, thought-out approach is needed to offset the deeper, easier, ingrained habits of delusion. By habit, I didn't mean doing something automatically and unconsciously. Basically, the aim is for all those deeper habitual neurological pathways to fall into total disuse.

There is a subtler component to the habit-forming, which is perhaps counter-intuitive. What I mean is the growth of faith. At a certain point, it becomes evidently foolish to repeat the same mistake of formulating concepts of the Totality, since one has reasoned about it sufficiently deeply and thoroughly. To want to think the matter through again, when one has well-and-truly understood perfectly, is a bad habit, based on lack of faith in reason. The new habit is about knowing intuitively why one shouldn't try to form some comfortable secure reasoning. But notice that that habit is based on reason, and is not a rejection of same.

It also sounds like you are critical of many of the meditation disciplines that most eastern philosophies incorporate ie Buddhist mindfulness practices, Zazen, Taoist microcosmic orbit, Kundalini - spiritual disciplines of that sort. Am I right that you consider them unnecessary or not useful?

Some rituals can be helpful, if they're done wisely. But if they're done with blind faith, they're of no use.

What is "Taoist microcosmic orbit"? No idea what that is.

Certainly we are both in agreement that the only way to achieve anything is by giving the absolute entirety of your effort, everything, including what you think is your "life" and your "identity" towards obtaining the only "truth". So all the reference to people half-assing these issues, thinking they've obtained something prematurely, running when they can't even walk is not really necessary to discuss.

Good to hear.

I would rather see clearly what you think this type of enlightenment entails and why you discredit other approaches.

I think you know already.


.

[AlyOshA]

Kelly:

I think you know already.

I have a basic idea but these subjects tend to be subjective and dependent on how one defines the semantics of the concepts being used. My questions were not intended to be rhetorical, I wasn't fishing for weaknesses or trying to redirect you anywhere (except maybe in regards to eliciting a discussion on meditation). It's been a long time since I've written on this forum and my understanding of the different people who post is not entirely clear yet (as you can probably tell from my posts). But your clarifications are definitely helping me get up to speed at least on your particular views of these subjects. Also I am guessing that Kierkegaard is a major influence and as I admitted previously - I still haven't tapped the heart of his thinking. I started Practice In Christianity the other day and read some of the shorter PDFs you sent me... I want to discuss Kierkegaard in more detail when I am more knowledgeable.

I've stated before that I value meditation - not as a sole discipline but in combination with philosophical discrimination, dispassion, and discernment (I also respect aesthetic disciplines and even physical disciplines like martial arts).

Since I am already familiar with the philosophical practices of this forum, I would like to discuss meditation. I will expose many personal details of my life as one would expose raw meat to a pack of wolves :) just to further elicit your perception of this topic (hoping that I don’t come across as self-indulgent). One of my earliest memories was looking down at my flesh and wondering why I had to inhabit my body against my will. I was maybe 4 years old and I remember looking at the world as if it didn’t really exist, as if I was being tricked and wanting more than anything to see the reality behind the veil. Of course I didn’t use this type of wording back then but that was the general driving factor in my life.

When I was 7 years old I was exposed to meditation. My uncle was a heroin addict and when our family visited him at some expensive, world-class rehab, I took a group meditation seminar. I remember coming out of the seminar feeling different than I had ever felt before - and utterly enthralled by that feeling. At this stage, meditation was nothing more than what you would call "altered consciousness" or "mystical consciousness" but I was only 7 yet. From that moment on I practiced meditation diligently (and honestly it felt all too natural to me, almost as if I had practiced it many times in lifetimes prior). I had no idea what I was doing with it other than a higher form of escapism.

I wasn’t raised in any religion, in fact my family is mostly professed atheists, so around my early teen years when I delved into the spiritual classics I did so from more of a literary standpoint - not indoctrination. The spiritual classics gave my meditation practices a more defined direction and instead of using meditation as escapism I inherently wanted nothing more than to experience, understand, and become one with the nature of reality (at this point still feeling totally alien to my flesh and the world around me). My methods were visualization techniques and trying to sense the subtler energetic fields - or as my favorite quote from Jesus at the time "working not for the food that parishes, but to eat from the bread of life everlasting".

I also want to add that my family has a prominent history of suicide. So suicidal thoughts and death in general were a factor in my earliest perspectives of life. Most importantly, I felt enslaved by my flesh and the world and wanted complete freedom (even if that meant death). But this is still all in the realm of escapism.

In high school and college I consumed as much as I possibly could in regards to spiritual literature and religious philosophy – with a focus on Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. In my college years I became more and more extreme, alternating between the utterly sublime and utter distaste. At this point meditation was no longer “natural” or comforting, it was the opposite, it was extremely difficult and almost too painful to endure. I wanted nothing more than to gain complete control over all of my faculties. My method of trying to control those faculties was through philosophy and meditation. My meditation practices at this point were very similar to the Buddhist mindfulness practices of the silent observer. I would allow the conflicting and analyzing thoughts to play out in my head, having a dialogue with one another, arguing, analyzing, then over-analyzing, but I tried to be in a position beyond them, silently observing them, never casting judgment or interjecting – just observing them as they unfold. After years and years of practicing this method I came to the point were the thoughts totally stopped altogether (but only while I was meditating). I was completely aware of my subtler energetic connection with the universe – but wasn’t trying to analyze anything – almost a hyper-awareness of everything (I say "hyper-awareness" because my faculties were too distracted before to think and see things clearly - as they "really" are). This was not easy to maintain and required years and years of additional refinement.

When I was able to sit completely still in this type of meditation for hours on end, in total awareness but without effort, my mind switched from being hyper-aware to being a “receiving mind”. Receiving as one would consider a satellite dish or antenna as receiving. At this phase I started to pierce the veil and it utterly shattered my ability to interact with other people and the world. I could no longer relate to how others viewed life and interacted with it - so I wanted to withdraw from them completely. I started having visions during meditation. Philosophical principles and truths were "revealed" during these visions. I had physic visions relevant to the unfolding events of my life - which I think were there to empirically prove to me that what I was experiencing was in fact as "real" as it gets. It was so utterly dissimilar to anything else I’ve encountered that it is almost not worth discussing… It took me many more years of meditation to get past this phase.

Finally I found the connection between meditation and my daily interaction in the finite world. I was able to unite "carrying water and chopping wood" with the philosophical understanding of reality, utilizing reason and logic to it's utmost, while continuously and effortlessly experiencing the ever-present, all-pervading, Infinite/Zero/Self (or as Peter Rowland labels it "the Zero Totality").

This is where I'll leave off. Remember I am talking about meditation in conjunction with extremely arduous and painful, life and identity shattering, philosophical discrimination, dispassion, and discernment (with reason and logic as its very essence). Meditation would simply have no foundation if it weren't regulated prior and after by philosophical practices.

That was the raw meat – please rip it apart and gorge yourself to your intellect’s content.

[Talking Ass]

I appreciated reading your post. (But I'm deluded as all hell). ;-)