What Insights Have You Experienced?

[ardy]

Agreed. I just want to make it clear that Enlightenment doesn't render philosophy useless.

Russell, I think that philosophy involves looking within yourself for answers or what rings true for you from something you read or heard. Anyone who does that with honesty is already on the 'path'. The two are one in the end. Like many things.

[Russell Parr]

Russell, I think that philosophy involves looking within yourself for answers or what rings true for you from something you read or heard. Anyone who does that with honesty is already on the 'path'. The two are one in the end. Like many things.

To me, philosophy is the structure of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that one abides by in day to day life. Engaging in philosophy is an examination of philosophy. The path (to enlightenment) involves examining what is absolutely true about life and reality, and incorporating these truths into one's philosophy, until the truths become the core foundation of one's thoughts. While it is most likely that reading or hearing the truth from others is involved, it is mostly a personal journey, where one becomes an individual in the end, complete in oneself, because of his knowledge.

[ardy]

Russell, I think that philosophy involves looking within yourself for answers or what rings true for you from something you read or heard. Anyone who does that with honesty is already on the 'path'. The two are one in the end. Like many things.

To me, philosophy is the structure of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that one abides by in day to day life. Engaging in philosophy is an examination of philosophy. The path (to enlightenment) involves examining what is absolutely true about life and reality, and incorporating these truths into one's philosophy, until the truths become the core foundation of one's thoughts. While it is most likely that reading or hearing the truth from others is involved, it is mostly a personal journey, where one becomes an individual in the end, complete in oneself, because of his knowledge.

Agree apart form "because of his knowledge", knowledge has nothing to do with it IMHO in fact it strikes me to be a barrier to get over. Your knowledge leaves no room for anything else. See Cup running over anecdote in Japanese temple.

[Russell Parr]

I'm speaking of a specific knowledge, not one that the mind is filled with, but a knowledge that is tapped into. It is knowledge of emptiness, which enables the knower to be empty. The path takes one from knowing things about reality, to knowing reality first hand. To be one with God, you must first get to know Him.

Knowledge is indeed a barrier if it is clung onto, as with the scholar in the Zen story you mentioned, but that doesn't mean the Zen master didn't himself have such knowledge. It is what the master did with the knowledge that made the difference.

[Cahoot]

I listened to a fascinating discussion with a psychologist on our government ABC radio a couple of years ago. He was indignant about the state of his own profession where they seem to think that every human condition can be fixed by analysis or by drugs.

I can't remember the exact number but the number in millions of children on 'Ritalin', but it was huge in the USA. He thought it was taking away the distinctions of children and turning them into compliant, non-complaining automatons. He stated that this was funding a growth in psychiatry and not just on children. If you have a gambling problem, a drinking problem, sex obsession, feel you are being bullied at work, want to improve your IQ - there are unsubstantiated claims of drugs to deal with all of these things.

Maybe this is the foundation stones of your concerns. The moving away from our dna and natural life to a controlled existence.

The pretext for drugging children is to overcome learning disabilities.

In the United States, a significant voice in determining teaching methods is the union, and the union represents the teachers, not the kids.

They weren’t drugging us into compliance when we were kids in school. Corporeal punishment sufficed for kids the teacher could not handle. Punishment does seem to be a significant foundation for the raising of previous generations beginning with ours, and evidence of those underpinnings persists into adulthood. Look around. Evidence of the punishment philosophy is all over the map, existing as interpretation of phenomena, and existing as initiation of phenomena.

Drugs are not a punishment. They are administered to influence future behavior. In terms of outcome, those who were not institutionally drugged as children, ostensibly to improve learning capability, have no experience of that situation, to compare how things would have been different.

I’ve been familiar with meditation all my adult life, with varying degrees of intensity, but I have no experience other than rationality to compare with a life of non-meditation.

A rational interpretation of drugging the kids is that an emphasis has been placed on group behavior at the expense of the individual child, and that perpetuating this "style" of en masse education is insufficient cause for injecting behavior-altering drugs into the developing bodies of children, whether or not it is fashionable or best for the group.

Meditation stirs up the pond sediment, so that it washes away in the stream of life, and reveals which Wolf to feed.

Experiencing the thought-free state, the state of No-Insights found in sitting meditation, does expand awareness and knowledge of the thoughtful state, and the nature of thoughts. Sensitivity to the subtle develops and this is affected, likely accelerated, by meditation.

However, the body in motion, beginning with the insight of intent and motivation, is another ball of wax. All that leads to the first physical movement after emerging from the thought-free state, an emergence that naturally occurs in stages, delineates the moment when non-imaginative integration actually begins.

Is all of this necessary? We are born complete, with potentialities activated and developed according to proclivities, and other conditions.

Pretext vs. Reason = Bullshit vs. Truth

[ardy]

I'm speaking of a specific knowledge, not one that the mind is filled with, but a knowledge that is tapped into. It is knowledge of emptiness, which enables the knower to be empty. The path takes one from knowing things about reality, to knowing reality first hand. To be one with God, you must first get to know Him.

Knowledge is indeed a barrier if it is clung onto, as with the scholar in the Zen story you mentioned, but that doesn't mean the Zen master didn't himself have such knowledge. It is what the master did with the knowledge that made the difference.

What you say is partly true Russell. The Zen master would have emptied himself of ego and with it the thousand things we hang on to: I am wealthy, I am poor, I am reliable, I am unreliable, I am attractive, I am ugly, I am, I am, I am etc etc

What you are referring to is prajna wisdom. Now how the hell it works I have no idea, to just understand things from nothing is almost mystical if it wasn't so matter-of-fact.

However prajna knowledge would not build you a multi-span bridge over a major river without any prior knowledge. Is it a case of horses for courses or is one fine tuned to outside knowledge the other to inside knowledge?

[ardy]

Evidence of the punishment philosophy is all over the map, existing as interpretation of phenomena, and existing as initiation of phenomena.

I’ve been familiar with meditation all my adult life, with varying degrees of intensity, but I have no experience other than rationality to compare with a life of non-meditation.

Meditation stirs up the pond sediment, so that it washes away in the stream of life, and reveals which Wolf to feed.

Experiencing the thought-free state, the state of No-Insights found in sitting meditation, does expand awareness and knowledge of the thoughtful state, and the nature of thoughts. Sensitivity to the subtle develops and this is affected, likely accelerated, by meditation.

However, the body in motion, beginning with the insight of intent and motivation, is another ball of wax. All that leads to the first physical movement after emerging from the thought-free state, an emergence that naturally occurs in stages, delineates the moment when non-imaginative integration actually begins.

Is all of this necessary? We are born complete, with potentialities activated and developed according to proclivities, and other conditions.

Pretext vs. Reason = Bullshit vs. Truth

A foundation question: is it necessary? On immediate reaction - absolutely not!

I suspect many more have died on this road than ever get enlightened. I was always a bit shocked by Jack Kerouac's attempts, his failure seemed much harder for having tried than to have never tried at all.

The body in motion is one of the reasons for Kinhin, the idea of taking the meditative state into the world. During my time we did an exercise for a week where we were instructed to come in touch with the working surfaces. i.e. when driving feel the steering wheel in your hand and the impact it has on the steering gears, imagine the surface of the tyres coming in contact with the ground.

I found it a useful exercise in living meditation.

Pretext vs reason cannot = bullshit vs truth, unless your reasoning is sound and as I get older I am seeing less reason being used and just scratch the surface and you find self interest.

The UN in the 80's stated that all they had to do was control the eduction system of the western world for 15 years and they have a whole generation (maybe several) who would act for sustainability and environmentalism and thereby give the UN more power over westerners. I do not know what it is like in the USA but in Australia kids leave school knowing a huge amount about the environment and aboriginals but almost nothing about white people history, science or maths. Lucky I am old......

[Cahoot]

A foundation question: is it necessary? On immediate reaction - absolutely not!

Injecting “absolutely” opens the door for absolutely yes.

Because it exists implies that it is necessary.
Unknown cause of that necessity implies a limitation in knowing.

Ergo: Thoughts exist because they are necessary.

To whom are they necessary?
Whether or not the cause of that necessity is known, The Finder of the thought is a likely possibility.

Epistemology vs Tribalism = Rationality vs Belief

[Diebert van Rhijn]

BUT! I have stated here many times there is nothing anyone can say about that state as it is ineffable. Kyogen's striking the empty bamboo opened his mind to the great issue that is within emptiness. Striking your head against a rock may have the same effect.

You're making it too difficult, too "spiritual" perhaps. This is about the tremendous randomness of nature and the complex causality of why and when stuff happens to us. The teaching is trying to counter the idea that liberation would be a matter of method, teaching, training, meditation, experiences and so on, which was then a popular idea and still is stubbornly believed in today. But what all those spiritual activities do, at best, is removing but in most cases just a waste of time, some therapy for self to believe in self. Too much ends up being added again. While truth, insight, thought and reason are all flowing freely if not restricted and confused by ignorance. It doesn't "need" anything.

So I assume that the dichotomy of your path is your ability to talk about everything in an analytical way , countered, yet supported somehow, by making no statements about your attainments from your practice or any agreement on the efficaciousness of your methods.

Attainments? Isn't wisdom enough? Wasn't that what set you out on the path to begin with?

I wish you well but I do not think you or Kevin Solway have opened a new road. If you had you would not be so aggressive in that practice and you would have something to say about it that is not hidden in 1000 posts.

Ah, you don't like aggression! Only ego has something to lose. Perhaps you're confusing morality with truth.

DvR would add, subject to analysing that one stroke from a thousand sides, comparing it to other thoughts on break throughs, examining it from a philosophically logical approach, checking the bamboo to ensure it is genuine, finding the exact note the bamboo put out, what size the stone was and what speed it was traveling at when it struck, until it disappears.

If only you'd examine a bit more "philosophically logical" all the nonsense you appear to believe, contradictions you engage in and all these imagined attainments. This discussion is a call to wake up, grow up, strengthen your mind to some basic level of inquiry and start throwing out what doesn't belong. It's completely understandable that you're resisting and defending accomplishments, criticizing reason and logic as something you think you have understood or surpassed and would not be needed anymore that badly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Because it exists implies that it is necessary. Unknown cause of that necessity implies a limitation in knowing. Ergo: Thoughts exist because they are necessary. To whom are they necessary? Whether or not the cause of that necessity is known, The Finder of the thought is a likely possibility.

That doesn't make much sense when you'd think it further through. If something only needs existence to be necessary, then everything would be necessary and nothing ever unnecessary! That means the meaning of the word "being necessary" disappears. It has become meaningless since its opposition cannot exist!

Unless we think of unnecessary things and therefore make it necessary that unnecessary things do exist without necessity.

So we're reading here just another word for totality: calling it " necessity" for a change. If not, it's the needless introduction of some meaningless nonsense in this context. Necessity of course always being contextual.

[Pam Seeback]

For the sake of simplicity: When The Totality appears as a rock, The Totality is not thinking. When the Totality appears as a man, The Totality is thinking.

[Cahoot]

Because it exists implies that it is necessary. Unknown cause of that necessity implies a limitation in knowing. Ergo: Thoughts exist because they are necessary. To whom are they necessary? Whether or not the cause of that necessity is known, The Finder of the thought is a likely possibility.

That doesn't make much sense when you'd think it further through. If something only needs existence to be necessary, then everything would be necessary and nothing ever unnecessary! That means the meaning of the word "being necessary" disappears. It has become meaningless since its opposition cannot exist!

Unless we think of unnecessary things and therefore make it necessary that unnecessary things do exist without necessity.

So we're reading here just another word for totality: calling it " necessity" for a change. If not, it's the needless introduction of some meaningless nonsense in this context. Necessity of course always being contextual.

Everything that exists is necessary. Because the giraffe is at the party, it is necessary that the giraffe be at the party. If it is not there, its absence is also necessary. If it is not there and you think it should be, what exists is your desire for the giraffe to be at the party, and because that desire exists, then that’s necessary too, until that desire no longer exists, and then it is no longer there.

(edited to simplify)

[Cahoot]

When the Totality appears as a man, The Totality is thinking.

I am therefore I think

Think requires I am

I am does not require think

(said the skunk with a lisp
sorry, I couldn’t resist)

[Pam Seeback]

When the Totality appears as a man, The Totality is thinking.

I am therefore I think

Think requires I am

I am does not require think

(said the skunk with a lisp
sorry, I couldn’t resist)

Thinking requires awareness. Man is aware, rock is not aware.

An existent I/I am is the delusion. Decartes was called the father of modern dualism for a reason.

[Cahoot]

Thinking requires awareness. Man is aware, rock is not aware.

An existent I/I am is the delusion. Decartes was called the father of modern dualism for a reason.

Based on this, then we can say that you are Totality, manifesting as awareness, and awareness is a condition required for thought.

It follows that thinking requires a proper form, man rather than rock, then we can say that awareness requires form.

[Russell Parr]

Everything that exists is necessary. Because the giraffe is at the party, it is necessary that the giraffe be at the party. If it is not there, its absence is also necessary. If it is not there and you think it should be, what exists is your desire for the giraffe to be at the party, and because that desire exists, then that’s necessary too, until that desire no longer exists, and then it is no longer there.

Are you basically saying that things exist because of how we define existence, or that things exist because they are caused to exist? In either case, "necessity" is already implied and need not be expressed.

[Cahoot]

Everything that exists is necessary. Because the giraffe is at the party, it is necessary that the giraffe be at the party. If it is not there, its absence is also necessary. If it is not there and you think it should be, what exists is your desire for the giraffe to be at the party, and because that desire exists, then that’s necessary too, until that desire no longer exists, and then it is no longer there.

Are you basically saying that things exist because of how we define existence, or that things exist because they are caused to exist? In either case, "necessity" is already implied and need not be expressed.

Hello Russell. I appreciate your insights, and have a question.

I’m saying that an insight, which is a thought, exists because it is necessary for the thought to exist.

Necessity is caused by conditions. Because an airplane exists, the existence of the airplane is necessary. Before it existed (as a manifestation of possibility), the existence of the airplane was not necessary, though the desire for the existence of the airplane was necessary, because that desire existed.

Are thoughts created by man, or discovered by man?

[Russell Parr]

What you are referring to is prajna wisdom. Now how the hell it works I have no idea, to just understand things from nothing is almost mystical if it wasn't so matter-of-fact.

I'm no expert in buddhist terminology, but Prajna seems simple enough to understand, leaving me to assume that you are confessing a lack of Prajna. To me this can only come from a misunderstanding of Reality.

That we can "understand things from nothing" isn't mystical at all to me. The nothingness that all things come from, understanding included, is fundamentally the same as the things that we come to understand. Ultimately, it is simply the Tao, Taoing along, so to speak.

I'm interested in hearing more about what Prajna means to you, or perhaps how/where you learned it.

However prajna knowledge would not build you a multi-span bridge over a major river without any prior knowledge. Is it a case of horses for courses or is one fine tuned to outside knowledge the other to inside knowledge?

I see Enlightenment as the moment that the two come together as one.

[Russell Parr]

Hello Russell. I appreciate your insights, and have a question.

Thanks and no thanks for the flattery! Just doing my part.

I’m saying that an insight, which is a thought, exists because it is necessary for the thought to exist.

Necessity is caused by conditions. Because an airplane exists, the existence of the airplane is necessary. Before it existed (as a manifestation of possibility), the existence of the airplane was not necessary, though the desire for the existence of the airplane was necessary, because that desire existed.

To that effect, the non-existence of the plane (before it existed) was also necessary. Therefore, everything that exist is by necessity, as does everything that does not exist. Again, this talk of necessity seems... unnecessary. A bit redundant at least. This sounds related to A=A, which is important to understand as a premise, but is a bit pointless on its own.

Are thoughts created by man, or discovered by man?

Obviously it depends on what you mean by those phrases for the sake of language.

As for me, when it comes to the Ultimate, discovery would be better suited. Thought first arises, then is reflected on with more thought (discovery). Creation is eternal and is better suited at describing the causal processes of all things, within and beyond thought.

[Cahoot]

Hey Russell. I looked up the definition of flattery. It does not accurately describe the situation. The transmission was respect. The reception was flattery. Brevity of transmission may be a condition creating static in the reception.

The original discussion can be condensed to the question: When a rational thought process exists, can we rationally say that it is absolutely unnecessary for that rational thought process to exist?

Ancillary to this is the question: Since thoughts are discovered by awareness, do thoughts exist independent of awareness?

I have some views about this question, based on experiences transitioning from the state of no-thought, to thought. And I agree that under certain conditions, descriptions of experiences can add static to the reception, and under those conditions descriptions are not necessary ... thus they do not exist under those conditions.

[Russell Parr]

Hey Russell. I looked up the definition of flattery. It does not accurately describe the situation. The transmission was respect. The reception was flattery. Brevity of transmission may be a condition creating static in the reception.

I didn't sense any disrespect; my response was more of a hedging against my own ego getting boosted.

The original discussion can be condensed to the question: When a rational thought process exists, can we rationally say that it is absolutely unnecessary for that rational thought process to exist?

In relation to what? Relevance, causality, or..? Necessity isn't an inherent property, it is descriptive of a relation between ideas.

Ancillary to this is the question: Since thoughts are discovered by awareness, do thoughts exist independent of awareness?

Only in practical terms, i.e. by their definitions. Ultimately, nothing exists without awareness, nor does anything truly exist independently of anything else.

I have some views about this question, based on experiences transitioning from the state of no-thought, to thought. And I agree that under certain conditions, descriptions of experiences can add static to the reception, and under those conditions descriptions are not necessary ... thus they do not exist under those conditions.

I think the more important thing to realize is that all thoughts, as with everything else, are caused. Where the thoughts come from, whether or not they are relevant, consistent or random, add static or clarity, etc. is secondary and ultimately superfluous in view of the big picture.

This isn't to say that it is superfluous to have our own thoughts in order, with consistency, which is important in having a proper understanding. Rather, the subject at hand is about the nature of the existence of thought.

[Cahoot]

I think the more important thing to realize is that all thoughts, as with everything else, are caused.

But are thoughts really like everything else? Logically, thoughts don’t even exist.

Existence means: “the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness.” (Merriam-Webster’s online)

[Russell Parr]

But are thoughts really like everything else? Logically, thoughts don’t even exist.

Existence means: “the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness.” (Merriam-Webster’s online)

Whoever defined it that way certainly wasn't a philosopher :)

Thoughts obviously exist, or we wouldn't need brains. Thoughts are like software on a computer. Same thing goes for imagination; do imaginations exist? By that definition, they cannot, but without imagination we wouldn't have computers. What about mirages? Sure, mirages present the appearance of something that isn't really there, but there is something there that can be labeled a mirage.

Clearly that definition doesn't work very well. Definition 1b from Webster's site works great though, "reality as presented in experience," or as I'm sure you've heard around here, anything that presents an appearance to an observer.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: ...nor does anything truly exist independently of anything else.

Knowing this truth in concert with the actuality of consciousness appearing as if independent of everything "else" has produced in me a thought world of spiritual-emotional tension I am currently exploring. I am unwilling to call them insights, it seems more accurate to call them "existential experiences." Does anyone relate to: The loneliness of God, God's forgiveness for God, God's compassion for God, God laughs at God, God weeps for God?

[Cahoot]

Hey Russell. Keeping you busy, looks like. Thanks for the feedback and insights. One thought leads to another. No rush.

Thoughts obviously exist, or we wouldn't need brains. Thoughts are like software on a computer.

That thoughts exist implies that thoughts have physicality. After all, other than the physical, what really exists. Mirages and appearances?

The fact that everything made by man, including airplanes, first existed as a thought, and must first exist as a thought, also suggests that thoughts have physicality.

Thoughts can be lost, found, controlled, fed and starved, like wolves and other physicalities, which also suggests that thoughts have physicality.

In order for the physicality of thoughts to be logically consistent with reality as presented in mans’ experience, thoughts would necessarily have to be of a physicality that is too subtle for any current sensory organ or man-made instrument to register, other than Mind.