IS BUDDHISM THE 'WORD OF SIDDHARTHA'?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am not sure why anything more would ever have to be said after this:

The All which changes is not the All which never changes.

Thanks. Just quoting it now again for even more effect! I've linked this insight in the past with utterly superior translations of the Tao te Ching's famous first line. For example Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? and Re: Enlightenment. Some other attempts for other verses in a joint effort here.

Note: One thing that is beginning to grate on me, Diebert, is this long -- it must be intentional and planned, a deliberate *female* silence -- interval between when an important comment is posted and when you deign to respond to it.

Can you commit to responding within a 24 hour time frame? Thank you.

Yeah it comes as it goes. Some posts remain in draft though. It's also a bit of the masculine, timeless, over-the-horizon gaze you are confusing with feminine immediacy and directness in the responses you seem to demand.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And yet knowledge of finite things is the only kind of knowledge there is! Since finite things are ultimate reality to begin with, understanding them completely is the same as understanding ultimate reality - what is there to begin with.

If infinity would equal the finite, why then even bother making distinctions here? Or at all? Or having something like wisdom in contrast with common or mundane thought? It sounds like you are saying: non-dual 3D surround sound or simply mono, it all sounds the same with one hand clapping. Kind of reductive...

... that doesn't require any "hidden realities" if they are defined as being elusive to ordinary consciousness as well as possessing some unique quality that reveals or clarifies the nature of reality and/or one's place within it.

Why even bother with "ordinary" as qualifier? The problem of quality is not about any object having possession of it, naturally.

Consciousness isn't the only thing that exists, so a connection between non-consciousness and reality isn't wisdom.

Consciousness cannot be a thing among things as it would undo its definition: that what makes things possible to arise. In the same way the nature of things cannot be another thing. And same goes for any larger sense of reality.

[Santiago Odo]

Yeah it comes as it goes. Some posts remain in draft though. It's also a bit of the masculine, timeless, over-the-horizon gaze you are confusing with feminine immediacy and directness in the responses you seem to demand.

Meh. I am not sure what it means but this kept coming up. I am wondering if Jupi is involved in some the use of some sort of diabolical mind-control?

Consciousness cannot be a thing among things as it would undo its definition: that what makes things possible to arise. In the same way the nature of things cannot be another thing. And same goes for any larger sense of reality.

Actually, consciousness can be 'a thing among other things' if you consider the consciousness of a gnat.

I agree that the *nature of things* cannot be itself a thing (nor a cheesy deep-fried snack for that matter). I am curious though about this 'larger sense of reality'.

How large do you mean?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Actually, consciousness can be 'a thing among other things' if you consider the consciousness of a gnat.

I agree that the *nature of things* cannot be itself a thing (nor a cheesy deep-fried snack for that matter).

Only when consciousness is first defined to be something like a set of "brain functions". Then, since gnats are said to have a functioning brain, some level of consciousness could be implied.

The context of the forum would strongly suggest it has to be taken in the sense of a subject-object dynamic. Or at least awareness of thought, feelings and volition, which all need internal reflection on "things", like possible causes and effects assigned to states. The subject cannot know itself because it would first need the projection of such as new object which kind of misses the point.

Naturally, consciousness studies are turning the object of their studies inside out like that all the time. One thought experiment would be to imagine direct manipulation of consciousness and experience by scientific interference. This would cause the current concept of "thing" to cease altogether

I am curious though about this 'larger sense of reality'.

How large do you mean?

In this context that would be the anything in the order of the absolute, only imaginable by words like totality.

It's nice to see you taking an interest into the actual topic of the forum. It must seem like "gnat size" concerns at times or immaterial at best but they really aren't once all implications start to dawn. And I mean implications for the most deeply held beliefs like assumptions about the habitual realities.

[Santiago Odo]

In this context that would be the anything in the order of the absolute, only imaginable by words like totality.

Thus unimaginable.

[jupiviv]

If infinity would equal the finite, why then even bother making distinctions here? Or at all? Or having something like wisdom in contrast with common or mundane thought? It sounds like you are saying: non-dual 3D surround sound or simply mono, it all sounds the same with one hand clapping. Kind of reductive...

Finite things cannot be distinguished in terms of their closeness or special-ness wrt infinity. The contrast between wisdom and mundane thought is in how deeply and thoroughly someone is willing to think about mundane things. Deepness of thought isn't reducible to specific mundane thoughts or things for the same reason it cannot be contrasted with them, i.e., they begin and end in the All. It is precisely the introduction of transmundane elements that is reductive, because they are the unresolved delusions we cannot help but view as the essence of whatever actual wisdom we do possess.

... that doesn't require any "hidden realities" if they are defined as being elusive to ordinary consciousness as well as possessing some unique quality that reveals or clarifies the nature of reality and/or one's place within it.

Why even bother with "ordinary" as qualifier? The problem of quality is not about any object having possession of it, naturally.

Because I'm trying to establish that an *extraordinary* type of consciousness is non-existent and unnecessary for wisdom.

Consciousness isn't the only thing that exists, so a connection between non-consciousness and reality isn't wisdom.

Consciousness cannot be a thing among things as it would undo its definition: that what makes things possible to arise. In the same way the nature of things cannot be another thing. And same goes for any larger sense of reality.

The nature of consciousness *proves* beyond a doubt that it is a thing among things. Consciousness of the act of being conscious is impossible, so it has to be of something *else*. Since it has to be of something else, consciousness is as dependent on other things as they are on it.

[Santiago Odo]

But the thing that a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations with this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest.
---Carlyle

The contrast between wisdom and mundane thought is in how deeply and thoroughly someone is willing to think about mundane things.

This statement is useful insofar as it, as an assertion ('the thing a man practically lays to heart'), reveals an essential (anti-)metaphysical orientation. It seems to me to be a diagram of a discursive trap though. It is a metaphysical statement, yet it does not seem to wish to assume full responsibility as such, or perhaps I should say to realize the full scope of the statement as one of metaphysical assertion?

It seems to me though that in order to have defined 'the mundane' one must be speaking from a position -- in some sense -- outside of it. One must be making *wisdom statements* and speaking as wisdom's spokesman, must one not?

It seems to me that in order to define a wisdom-position within 'profound' thought about the 'mundane' that one has, just there, taken advantage of a sort of height or distance from the mundane. Too, for there to be 'wisdom' achieved as a result of deep thought about mundane things, requires a priori some wisdom-notions; or do these simply appear, like bonbons from Heaven? But where have they come from? Surely not from within the mundane.

It is precisely the introduction of transmundane elements that is reductive, because they are the unresolved delusions we cannot help but view as the essence of whatever actual wisdom we do possess.

That is an odd statement. Not sure if I capture it well.

What had formally seemed a sort of 'diagram of a discursive trap', and which asserts against the 'transmundane', actually here avails itself of the same 'transmundane', and thus reveals that this mode of thought is, itself, a transmundane reduction. According to its own definitions the insertion of the transmundane is evidence of 'unresolved delusions'.

It is true, it seems to me, that any *interpretation* is, according to this analysis, a reduction -- how could it be otherwise? But must we see a given interpretation as necessarily an 'unresolved delusion'? This posits that an unresolved delusion could resolve itself into resolved perception. But in order for that phrase to speak from the claimed wisdom-perspective it ('resolved perception') must be qualified to 'resolved true perception'.

And thus we come full circle to a priori senses of, and prior definitions of, wisdom.

Ach! I need a nosher. Dig in guys. Always willing to share . . .

[Pam Seeback]

Santiago Odo: And thus we come full circle to a priori senses of, and prior definitions of, wisdom.

Dividing wisdom into before and now only serves to vex the intellect because the intellect can't know before or now.

What is the true nature of wisdom? Wisdom is revelation; included in wisdom revelation is the knowing it is true (not why or how or when or where, again, these things we can't know).

We cannot know the why or where or how or when of wisdom but we can know the way, the how of wisdom realization. Is there a universal way/how? If there is, then all who have 'walked' the way will know it to be true. My nutshell version:

1. A period of awakening, asking questions such as: Why am I unhappy? Why am I anxious. stressed-out, fearful? What is the truth of who or what I am? Is religion true? Is there a God? Is science true? What is good? Why is there evil?

2. A period of inquiry/contemplation, a withdrawal from the collective reasoning of humanity to reason for oneself the answers to questions asked. Usually 'spiritual' or wisdom books are consumed in concert with writing down one's own wisdom thoughts.

3. A period of illumination and doubt where answers are revealed and are doubted until they are known to be true or are discarded as being false. It is during this period that one is likely to participate on social media or internet message boards such as Genius Forum, a testing time/wisdom deepening time if you will. Reading books/writing down one's own wisdom thoughts may or may not still be a part of the way.

4. Arrival at knowing what is true and what is not true to include, for some, a desire to awaken inquiry or encourage inquiry. The desire to refer to wisdom books and/or to say or write down one's own wisdom thoughts (except those purposed to awaken) is passed.

Post-script: The intellect continues to be vexed until it waves the white flag. :-)

[Santiago Odo]

Hello Pam. Please, help yourself to the Cheetos. There is an *infinite* supply.

[Pam Seeback]

Hello Pam. Please, help yourself to the Cheetos. There is an *infinite* supply.

Hello Alex-waving-the-white-flag-of-sarcasm, also in infinite supply.

[jupiviv]

The contrast between wisdom and mundane thought is in how deeply and thoroughly someone is willing to think about mundane things.

It is a metaphysical statement, yet it does not seem to wish to assume full responsibility as such, or perhaps I should say to realize the full scope of the statement as one of metaphysical assertion?

I am genuinely impressed by the (probably unintentional) accuracy of this statement! For this *unprecedented* moment of truth, you get a tin of soft, juicy gulab jamuns. Pop one in your mouth while I explain.

While you are correct that my statement is irresponsibly metaphysical, that is completely intentional. Only the All is metaphysical, which is to say, it encompasses all physical - or finite - realities. Thus, only the All is responsible for making wisdom out of mundane thoughts and things. In the end we cannot, like Socrates, only resign ourselves to midwifery for promising young philosophers. We must become midwives and wet nurses to our own wisdom.

Wait, I sense that somewhere near you, a newborn wisdomling is starving to death. It needs *blue* milk Alex! Quick, give it of your mantit squeezins plenteous suck!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The contrast between wisdom and mundane thought is in how deeply and thoroughly someone is willing to think about mundane things.

Looks like substituting special states of consciousness or hidden realities with some sort of weasel words like how uncommonly deep and thorough thoughts could become, before slapping the sticker "wisdom" on it. It's difficult to understand the difference to what you were opposing initially. It's quite possible you have been constructing some imaginary straw you could oppose or hold on to!

Deepness of thought isn't reducible to specific mundane thoughts or things for the same reason it cannot be contrasted with them, i.e., they begin and end in the All.

You mean it would be some special level of consciousness, addressing something "beyond" these "mundane" things? Wow!

It is precisely the introduction of transmundane elements that is reductive, because they are the unresolved delusions we cannot help but view as the essence of whatever actual wisdom we do possess.

Yes because such "element" would be still part of some physical, conceivable or visible world. A world based on illusion, modelling, imagination and many other causes giving birth to it and its ten thousand elements. The mundane and the transmundane are in the same boat of perception, the whole desire machinery, that is, we're still in a symbolic realm indirectly dealing with our "stuff".

Why even bother with "ordinary" as qualifier? The problem of quality is not about any object having possession of it, naturally.

Because I'm trying to establish that an *extraordinary* type of consciousness is non-existent and unnecessary for wisdom.

The same could be said for "ordinary" types, based on the fact that you probably believe most people you know lack wisdom.

Consciousness cannot be a thing among things as it would undo its definition: that what makes things possible to arise. In the same way the nature of things cannot be another thing. And same goes for any larger sense of reality.

The nature of consciousness *proves* beyond a doubt that it is a thing among things. Consciousness of the act of being conscious is impossible, so it has to be of something *else*. Since it has to be of something else, consciousness is as dependent on other things as they are on it.

That only argues for causality to be real -- but not for any collection of things among another collections of things. Then again, you must realize by now that I do not regard things to be real in any sense while having consciousness to be a thing would render it entirely unreal. For this reason I do not regard consciousness as a thing but neither as some ghost-in-the-machine "cock" magic.

Consciousness is very much the way we perceive of reality. For it to be less than the whole of reality we would have to first assert that there are things outside our consciousness being real somewhere. But before you do, please be careful of what it implies when you assign reality to things residing permanently outside consciousness, as you don't know anything about them, allowing this would undermine everything you might assume about the nature of reality. As such, for philosophical inquiry to remain meaningful, your consciousness allows you to access the whole of reality and as such cannot be only part of the real but has to reflect all of the real in your experience. For others: this reasoning does not imply in any way that there's nothing outside ones mind because this is about a stage where it's not known what mind exactly is, therefore such conclusion simply cannot be arrived at, ever.

[jupiviv]

The contrast between wisdom and mundane thought is in how deeply and thoroughly someone is willing to think about mundane things.

Looks like substituting special states of consciousness or hidden realities with some sort of weasel words like how uncommonly deep and thorough thoughts could become, before slapping the sticker "wisdom" on it.

I would say it looks exactly like what it says on the sticker. There is no shortage of mundane things, and the more deeply you think the more of them you encounter. In other words if you think about the real nature of anything honestly, for long enough, you realise that a lot of other things have to be thought about also. And if you repeat this process with other things, honestly and for long enough, you eventually realise what the All is.

The understanding of the All is precisely this ceaseless repetition. Of course, this repetition isn't about our returning to the same things over and over but rather the same thing returning to us wherever we may go. That is the difference between samsara and nirvana.

You know I think we have traversed this territory before. Have you asked yourself why you keep returning to it? The problem as I see it is that you want a special and separate designation for wisdom, via consciousness. Unless you want to address that directly, none of us can add anything more of value to this discussion.

[Santiago Odo]

I could not bear those frightening, dough-bound sugar-soaked diabetical lumps. I'll stick with these and so should you-plural.

Because I'm trying to establish that an *extraordinary* type of consciousness is non-existent and unnecessary for wisdom.

You know I think we have traversed this territory before. Have you asked yourself why you keep returning to it? The problem as I see it is that you want a special and separate designation for wisdom, via consciousness. Unless you want to address that directly, none of us can add anything more of value to this discussion.

An extraordinary level of consciousness must certainly be necessary; in fact that assertion is part-and-parcel of your own assertions. Except, oddly, you desire simultaneously to negate the necessary. Otherwise, it seems possible that a machine could be programmed to do the sort of thinking you continually refer to: not real conscious thinking but some sort of cataloguing. It is likely that a machine, at some point, could do that better than a human (and indeed they are doing it now).

To define wisdom is itself a special operation of consciousness. There is no simple definition of course. And the more thorough the definition, the more a special consciousness is demanded. Necessarily metaphysical and unavoidably so.

There is no written or expressed wisdom -- as in sayings or poems or allusions nor artworks, nor any embodied representative -- that is not totally 'special' and also metaphysical in breadth. But there certainly is a lowering of standards or a decrepitude of perception that results when transcendental vision (I place metaphysics there) is negated. The question is: What provokes ascent? What causes descent?

Have you asked yourself why you keep returning to it?

It is not only Mysterious Dilbert the Philosophical Spider who is compelled to *return* to the question; it is a necessary manoeuvre for any man to gain any level of sense of life and existence that could be said to be wise and express wisdom. There is no way round it.

[jupiviv]

I could not bear those frightening, dough-bound sugar-soaked diabetical lumps. I'll stick with these and so should you-plural.

I agree with that! But you know, most people like them. How about rasmalais? Sweet, nutty, milky cheese balls... pop one in your mouth right now!

Because I'm trying to establish that an *extraordinary* type of consciousness is non-existent and unnecessary for wisdom.

You know I think we have traversed this territory before. Have you asked yourself why you keep returning to it? The problem as I see it is that you want a special and separate designation for wisdom, via consciousness. Unless you want to address that directly, none of us can add anything more of value to this discussion.

An extraordinary level of consciousness must certainly be necessary; in fact that assertion is part-and-parcel of your own assertions. Except, oddly, you desire simultaneously to negate the necessary. Otherwise, it seems possible that a machine could be programmed to do the sort of thinking you continually refer to: not real conscious thinking but some sort of cataloguing. It is likely that a machine, at some point, could do that better than a human (and indeed they are doing it now).

Well yes, an extraordinary level of consciousness is necessary. What isn't necessary is an extraordinary *type* of consciousness, which is what I said.

To define wisdom is itself a special operation of consciousness. There is no simple definition of course. And the more thorough the definition, the more a special consciousness is demanded. Necessarily metaphysical and unavoidably so.

Yes the definition wisdom is necessarily metaphysical, just like everything else. Can you name anything that doesn't begin and end in the All?

[Santiago Odo]

Frankly, Indian sweets are always too ... cloying and dense.

Do you know that your idea that wisdom (enlightenment, et cetera) as an extension or amplification of common consciousness is (it seems to me) peculiarly Vedic? (if you’ll accept the term). It would fit into a larger worldview common to your region.

I honestly do not think it is an Occidental notion. Insofar as the Occident expresses Greco-Christian understanding.

Your concept would, to a degree, fit with Aristotelian notions. That is, it is sort of logical that if you amplify a gnat’s awareness a zillion fold you’d wind up . . . with you! Or with that slippery and devilish gnatcatcher Diebert . . .

But let’s suppose that *real* enlightenment and wisdom came through Grace as it is doctrinally understood. That is from outside of common nature and as ‘gift’ or ‘bestowal’.

Still, it would be some part-and-parcel of the ‘All’, I admit, and yet distinct and different from any other (let us say ‘natural’) wisdom state. Is that concept and view possible in your own expanded gnatwareness?

[jupiviv]

Do you know that your idea that wisdom (enlightenment, et cetera) as an extension or amplification of common consciousness is (it seems to me) peculiarly Vedic? (if you’ll accept the term). It would fit into a larger worldview common to your region.

An "extension or amplification of common consciousness" is just another way of saying "a different type of consciousness". Regardless of whether that idea is peculiarly Vedic (it's not), it's not mine.

[Santiago Odo]

No, same type, different level.