The path to wisdom in a nutshell

[jufa]

Being it is stated "Everything can be reduced to a bowl of something[" and "it's called "reductive reasoning" then reductive reasoning should pinpoint that "bowl of something" giving the reductive reason to reach a concrete conclusion to stand upon. I see no such platform, no clue of deductive reasoning to verify a bowl of something exist.

You seem to have misunderstood my reply to Pam. When she claimed that "spirit or consciousness never stops expressing Itself" and "spirit or consciousness is never stagnant or waffling", these statements manifested as a kind of bowl where the whole world and its discourse was melted down to, indeed quite "reductive". And it was then presented as platform by Pam but I wondered if she was realizing it.

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

then reductive reasoning should pinpoint that bowl of something giving the reductive reason...a concrete conclusion to stand upon.

You have yet to provide such a platform.

never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

There is no 'our mind', there is only consciousness thinking 'our mind' (ignorance) and consciousness realizing there is no 'our mind' (wisdom) - this is the culling of consciousness of its own belief in dualism. Then and only then does every thought of 'outside' disappear within consciousness.

And how does that oppose the stated path to wisdom as one of nutshells, going for essentials without destruction? Raising quality and lowering obstructions? Creating definitions or "bowls" from consciousness is not the whole of wisdom, is not the complete path, after all.

My point was that in saying that "Consciousness is all about the waffling and the culling of our mind" you have created two points of conversation origin, consciousness AND our mind. There is only consciousness.

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

There is nothing at all, only for the ignorant.

[David Quinn]

There is nothing at all, only for the ignorant.

That says everything.

You've out-nutshelled the nutshell!

[visheshdewan050193]

"Then you will be in samadhi all the time."

Could you shed some light on what's implied by samadhi in the quote? I'm assuming it doesn't mean exclusive meditative absorption on a particular object of meditation. Is it just a state of consciousness in which you perceive boundaries just as people with ordinary consciousness can but can sort of 'context-switch' to the Infinite at will? Is 'conciousness of the Infinite' even a phrase that makes sense from an enlightened perspective? You've mentioned about how even rest periods can be of spiritual significance, does this mean you can be 'aware' of the Infinite while asleep?

There are a couple of posts here about the variations of the Zennish riddle of 'entering enlightenment', good stuff for generating cognitive conflict.

[Pam Seeback]

There is nothing at all, only for the ignorant.

That says everything.

You've out-nutshelled the nutshell!

Nutshells serve the purpose of intellectual illumination, but if left unwatered by understanding of the heart, they become hollow shells.

When you know everything is you and you are everything, you know love of all things. When this love is known and declared, it is the Something of You.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My point was that in saying that "Consciousness is all about the waffling and the culling of our mind" you have created two points of conversation origin, consciousness AND our mind. There is only consciousness.

If consciousness "never stops expressing" then where or how does it exclude waffling? By culling? And expressing in what? To whom? By raising terms like consciousness and expressing, you create conflicts for your self, which you then need to cover for. This causes the waffling.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

Again, you are clearly not reading my statement to Pam correctly. The reduction I commented on was Pam's and now yours!

You have yet to provide such a platform.

You raise Spirit as Pam raised "Consciousness" as some "be all" to all things. That's your reductive platform: as you're not doubting it.

[David Quinn]

"Then you will be in samadhi all the time."

Could you shed some light on what's implied by samadhi in the quote?

The previous lines of the Hui Neng quote provide a clue. Samadhi arises when one mentally focuses on the nature of reality and becomes fully aware of the illusory nature of all things. A process of completely letting go takes place. One no longer cares where the mind goes. There is no longer any desire to chase after anything, nor any attempt to cling to anything. All restraints disappear. One openly glides into each moment without inhibition. The entirety of utterly everything is fully embraced. And yet nothing is ever held on to. In each moment, everything is completely abandoned. One relaxes into the boundless void of our true nature, which results in a tremendous peace and an invigorating joy. One’s body is enveloped in intense physical pleasure from head to toe. The mind is alight with insights. In each moment, one is immersed in a mysterious understanding that cannot be put into concepts or words. It is a living understanding. It is not a state of consciousness, it is a mode of being. It is everyday life at its purest.

I'm assuming it doesn't mean exclusive meditative absorption on a particular object of meditation.

The opposite, in fact. One practices a kind of anti-meditation, in which the focus is on preventing any sliding back into the delusion of trying to meditate, of trying to reach somewhere.

Is it just a state of consciousness in which you perceive boundaries just as people with ordinary consciousness can but can sort of 'context-switch' to the Infinite at will?

The enlightened person doesn’t have to engage in contrivances like that. Context-switching has its uses in the pre-enlightenment/intellectual phase, when you are still trying to expose and abandon deluded habits of thought.

Is 'conciousness of the Infinite' even a phrase that makes sense from an enlightened perspective?

It’s a label that has its uses when you want to distinguish between enlightenment and ignorance, such as for teaching purposes.

You've mentioned about how even rest periods can be of spiritual significance, does this mean you can be 'aware' of the Infinite while asleep?

No, when you are in deep sleep you are entirely unconscious. There is no awareness of anything. A better way to phrase it is that a Buddha never experiences delusions, whether awake or asleep.

[Pam Seeback]

My point was that in saying that "Consciousness is all about the waffling and the culling of our mind" you have created two points of conversation origin, consciousness AND our mind. There is only consciousness.

If consciousness "never stops expressing" then where or how does it exclude waffling? By culling? And expressing in what? To whom? By raising terms like consciousness and expressing, you create conflicts for your self, which you then need to cover for. This causes the waffling.

Nothing is excluded from consciousness, this is my point. This is what is known when the idea of a subject called 'mind' is realized to be delusional. So whatever waffling or culling that appears does so within consciousness itself, of itself, to itself. There iis no conflct raised of the nondual realization of consciousness only, therefore no covering for.

How am I going to address the enlightenment process if I don't use terms such as 'consciousness' and 'expressing?'

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

Again, you are clearly not reading my statement to Pam correctly. The reduction I commented on was Pam's and now yours!

You have yet to provide such a platform.

You raise Spirit as Pam raised "Consciousness" as some "be all" to all things. That's your reductive platform: as you're not doubting it.

From the perspective of the illumined intellect, it is necessary to reduce implied cause-of-everything using whatever term 'feels right'. One knows the term being used is not 'rhe thing', therefore no doubt is experienced.

[visheshdewan050193]

One relaxes into the boundless void of our true nature, which results in a tremendous peace and an invigorating joy. One’s body is enveloped in intense physical pleasure from head to toe.

You've mentioned before that 'being' in an enlightened 'state' is being emotionless. Could you clarify the context for this?

No, when you are in deep sleep you are entirely unconscious. There is no awareness of anything. A better way to phrase it is that a Buddha never experiences delusions, whether awake or asleep.

Because when you're asleep, you can't experience anything, so there's no delusion to be experienced?

[visheshdewan050193]

The enlightened person doesn’t have to engage in contrivances like that. Context-switching has its uses in the pre-enlightenment/intellectual phase, when you are still trying to expose and abandon deluded habits of thought.

So you can perceive things as they are with boundaries and yet simultaneously be aware of the Infinite?

[David Quinn]

One relaxes into the boundless void of our true nature, which results in a tremendous peace and an invigorating joy. One’s body is enveloped in intense physical pleasure from head to toe.

You've mentioned before that 'being' in an enlightened 'state' is being emotionless. Could you clarify the context for this?

The physical pleasure comes from being deeply relaxed; the joy and vigor comes from being mentally unfettered. These are not emotional states, rather they are organic in nature. They are symptoms of organic well-being, much like how we used to be as little children.

Emotions can come into it, though, because even though a person might be enlightened, he is still likely to be a long way short of perfect Buddhahood, which means that his ego still exists and can easily intrude into the enlightenment experience. This will sometimes, but not always, result in emotional highs or lows infusing themselves into the experience.

Altered states of consciousness, with their exotic forms of bliss, can also intrude. One learns over time how to recognize these infusions of the emotions and/or altered states and how to separate them from the enlightenment experience.

No, when you are in deep sleep you are entirely unconscious. There is no awareness of anything. A better way to phrase it is that a Buddha never experiences delusions, whether awake or asleep.

Because when you're asleep, you can't experience anything, so there's no delusion to be experienced?

Yes.

The enlightened person doesn’t have to engage in contrivances like that. Context-switching has its uses in the pre-enlightenment/intellectual phase, when you are still trying to expose and abandon deluded habits of thought.

So you can perceive things as they are with boundaries and yet simultaneously be aware of the Infinite?

Yes.

[jufa]

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

Again, you are clearly not reading my statement to Pam correctly. The reduction I commented on was Pam's and now yours!

You have yet to provide such a platform.

You raise Spirit as Pam raised "Consciousness" as some "be all" to all things. That's your reductive platform: as you're not doubting it.

To be a good leader, it is stated, one has to also be a good follower. To be a good speaker, one has to also be a good listener. To honestly participate in an awakening conversation, one has to be willing to lean and bend and know angles are presented to unsettle beliefs and ideas deemed to be absolutes by a set mind in a rotating world.

I bring these things to your attention to open you to deductive reasoning. Individuality of uniqueness give all men the freedom to do what they will to do. All men have the freedom to choose the way they think even when influenced by situations, circumstance, or conditions visible and invisible in their worlds. Nonetheless men do not have that freedom in another person's world, for they, as all men, are on the journey of the "Hero With a Thousand Faces," seeking to build a sanctuary by first acknowledging, then wrestle through the demons enslaving their discerning thoughts.

By not separating words meaning because of images acquired without precision, I am, when I recognize word differentiation pertaining to what is grasped, allowed to become the active astringent of not only my thoughts, imagination, mind and conscious, and cleans my soul, in this reciprocal noosphere world of human thought, of what some other persons meaning is supposed to be when there are no absolutes. Spirit, Consciousness, God, by me, are used interchangeable when I speak of Wisdom and Grace. How Pam use them, and your interpretation is

"the freedom to do what they will to do."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

Again, you are clearly not reading my statement to Pam correctly. The reduction I commented on was Pam's and now yours!

You have yet to provide such a platform.

You raise Spirit as Pam raised "Consciousness" as some "be all" to all things. That's your reductive platform: as you're not doubting it.

From the perspective of the illumined intellect, it is necessary to reduce implied cause-of-everything using whatever term 'feels right'. One knows the term being used is not 'rhe thing', therefore no doubt is experienced.

The trouble here is found in these words:

From the perspective of the illumined intellect

. The perspective of represent a singular idea which is neither universal nor absolute, just and opinion among innumerable opinions which stands along side my opinion with the same

height, width, depth

which then is also

of the illumined intellect

Which of the two has the authority to claim of the other what

'feels right',

or determine the other

knows the term being used is not 'rhe thing', therefore no doubt is experienced?

An illumined intellects only perspective, in this instant, is bits and pieces and so deductive reasoning is generalized, which is saying all things are the same in the bag of life. Inductive reasoning here would seem to serve the better description.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[visheshdewan050193]

This will sometimes, but not always, result in emotional highs or lows infusing themselves into the experience.

i.e. in the enlightened experience? You've mentioned that it can be a 'great suffering' being separated from the enlightenment experience, whereas the actual experience is quite thrilling or exhilarating. Are these an example of the highs and lows you mentioned? On a side note, how bad can the low be when you slide into delusion after getting a taste of enlightenment?

[visheshdewan050193]

The physical pleasure comes from being deeply relaxed; the joy and vigor comes from being mentally unfettered. These are not emotional states, rather they are organic in nature. They are symptoms of organic well-being, much like how we used to be as little children.

Much like how we used to be as little children - it's still qualitatively somewhat different given that it comes with an enlightened perspective of reality, something that children don't have?

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, you can't reduce Spirit by deductive reasoning just as you cannot localize God. Understand that all conflicts must be settled within your consciousness, this is why I stated to if you declare deductive reasoning can add or take away from what is,

Again, you are clearly not reading my statement to Pam correctly. The reduction I commented on was Pam's and now yours!

You have yet to provide such a platform.

You raise Spirit as Pam raised "Consciousness" as some "be all" to all things. That's your reductive platform: as you're not doubting it.

From the perspective of the illumined intellect, it is necessary to reduce implied cause-of-everything using whatever term 'feels right'. One knows the term being used is not 'rhe thing', therefore no doubt is experienced.

The trouble here is found in these words:

From the perspective of the illumined intellect

. The perspective of represent a singular idea which is neither universal nor absolute, just and opinion among innumerable opinions which stands along side my opinion with the same

height, width, depth

which then is also

of the illumined intellect

Which of the two has the authority to claim of the other what

'feels right',

or determine the other

knows the term being used is not 'rhe thing', therefore no doubt is experienced?

An illumined intellects only perspective, in this instant, is bits and pieces and so deductive reasoning is generalized, which is saying all things are the same in the bag of life. Inductive reasoning here would seem to serve the better description.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Belief in 'my opinion' comes from belief in separate (objective) minds or persons, a realization that can be inductively reasoned of the inner inquiry "who or what is aware of 'my opinion'? The illumed intellect's perspective is "I am aware of 'my opinion', therefore, I am awareness, not opinion", the key word here being 'illumed" (enlightened).

All thought appears singularly, if thought appeared any other way, consciousness would be unable to create/know itself.

At the core of any discussion, yours and mine included, is the truth that there is no objective separation between us. And that in staying true to the truth of absolute or divine (conscious) subjectivity, thoughts of objective separation (my opinion and/vs. your opinion) cannot arise.

[jufa]

Pam stated

At the core of any discussion, yours and mine included, is the truth that there is no objective separation between us. And that in staying true to the truth of absolute or divine (conscious) subjectivity, thoughts of objective separation (my opinion and/vs. your opinion) cannot arise.

This is why the precise deduction of the quote "

Let your mind be in a state such as that of the illimitable emptiness, but do not attach it to the idea of 'vacuity'. Let it function freely. Whether you are in activity or at rest, let your mind abide nowhere. Forget the discrimination between a sage and an ordinary man. Ignore the distinction of subject and object. Let the Essence of Mind and all phenomenal objects be in a state of Thusness. Then you will be in samadhi all the time

is poppycock, for our lives, and all activities within it are governed by an unknown Spirit. And our ability to do anything on our own is a misrepresentation, for it is about discovery of ones self, and only the Spirit can lead us into the deep things of God to find our true identity. Repentance of humanism is the Wisdom which leads one to the door Him whom says

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

Whatever we are, we express it.

[jufa]

Whatever we are, we express it.

A broader view begins behind the statement

Whatever we are, we express it.

with the question; what conscious mind were you living before your Spirit entered into two merged consciousness' which conceived and formed that what we express'? In posing this question to myself, I realized I am engraved in the Spirit law "Everything after its kind." Comprehending this revelation I found assures me there is no deception within creation that can occur by anything a material or fleshly mentality objectify in this invisible life I am living in expression of it. It is no secret we are expressing life, the mystery comes when degrees, levels, and spheres become the subject of the unknown.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

Whatever we are, we express it.

A broader view begins behind the statement

Whatever we are, we express it.

with the question; what conscious mind were you living before your Spirit entered into two merged consciousness' which conceived and formed that what we express'? In posing this question to myself, I realized I am engraved in the Spirit law "Everything after its kind." Comprehending this revelation I found assures me there is no deception within creation that can occur by anything a material or fleshly mentality objectify in this invisible life I am living in expression of it. It is no secret we are expressing life, the mystery comes when degrees, levels, and spheres become the subject of the unknown.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Expressing is the mystery, what is called life is the mystery, consciousness is the mystery, therefore degrees, levels and spheres are delusions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whatever we are, we express it.

Whatever we are, and we are not, we express.

How am I going to address the enlightenment process if I don't use terms such as 'consciousness' and 'expressing?'

You'll never address it or what it isn't. You are not in the position but inside a dialog like this some clarification of language can still happen.

What is being clarified? The purpose of wisdom is addressing all ignorance, as a counter force to it. While ignorance happens when what is not life is called or believed to be life or what is not conscious is called being conscious and so forth, as to avoid the unmistakable, unavoidable, ultimate truth: that we are born of ignorance and die because of it. We can address only addressing, we can talk about our deeper language, where consciousness occurs, words, feelings and sensations arise and organize. It will never be just a word game, only to those playing.

[buddha]

So, my friend meditates a little bit and says, "if you aren't trying to empty your mind, it isn't meditation". I disagree.

What is this unending emptiness in the topic quote? Compared to a blank, empty mind?