A spotlight on A=A: Dan Rowden

[Leyla Shen]

Actually, I think I found one that offers more insight:

1. Mumyo (ignorance, stupidity): refers both to earthly desire and accompanying illusion possessed since the remotest past, and to ignorance of the truth of the Four Noble Truths and the Relationship of Manifestation.

2. Gyo (behavior, the three actions of thought, word and deed - synonymous with the three types of karma): refers to the three types of erroneous mental, verbal and physical actions, which manifest because of the influence of ignorance and stupidity. After a time, the energy reserves from these actions become a part of habitual powers, become karma, and exert further influence.

3. Shiki (consciousness): refers to the six consciousnesses or senses of subjective and operative cognition; (1) sight, (2) hearing, (3) smell, (4) taste, (5) touch and, (6) mentality, or the function of the mind.

4. Myoshiki (designation of form) refers to the six objective
categories that can be perceived (environment) through cognitive sensation; (1) physical form, (2) sound, (3) odor or fragrance, (4) flavor, (5) tactile objects and (6) information perceivable by the mind.

5. Rokunyu (the six organ groups through which sensation and
perception are possible): refers to the (1) eyes, (2) ears, (3) nose, (4) tongue, (5) physical body, and (6) mind.

6. Soku (contact, the harmonization of the organs, environment and consciousness): refers to the condition of recognition by the six consciousnesses that is established through the six senses' perception of the six environments.

7. Ju (reception): refers to the mind's receptivity, or the senses' internalization of impressions resulting from external stimuli. The impressions from these external stimuli are felt as either painful or pleasurable.

8. Ai (want): refers to awareness of feelings of fierce craving that result from pain and pleasure, as when a thirsty person craves water. When pain is sensed, one experiences a strong craving to try to avoid the hateful feeling, and when pleasure is felt, the experience creates an intense desire to try to maintain the sensation.

9. Shu (taking): refers to the act of physically or verbally choosing to take or reject something. While the previous clause referred to the heart's burning desires of love and hatred, "taking" refers to real actions that are taken in response to such emotions. Plundering what one wants, and getting rid of, wounding or killing what one hates, are
examples of such actual conduct.

10. U (existence): refers to everything in existence, which results from the previous clause's actual conduct based on choices of acceptance or rejection. It is the accumulation of the habitual energies of past conduct, which then regulates future actions.

11. Sho (birth, the phenomenon of being born): refers to the new life which manifests as a result of the temperament of the existence in the preceding clause.

12. Roshi (aging and death): all sufferings are represented by
growing old and dying.

[Matt Gregory]

That sounds about right to me. We crave things and go to fulfill the craving which results in either pleasure or pain (depending on whether we succeed or not), and this pleasure and pain increases our habitual dependence on the idea of inherent existence. This belief in inherent existence is what causes the mind to depart from Ultimate Truth.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, and consequently are emotionally driven to do so. The key word here is obviously “habitual” and I would also imagine -- without having studied much Buddhism -- that this is exactly where the idea of “mindfulness” comes into play.

In the propagation of wisdom, the reasoning person would always be asking the following question: does this action or thought serve to further bind or free self and others from this karmic cycle of habitual ignorance? When the mind of an individual is caught in the cycle of pain and pleasure, it is necessary to overcome it with Truth, and only Truth.

To discount -- wittingly or unwittingly -- the role of evolution, for instance, in the development of and beyond the sexes and highlight instead a set of characteristics for masculinity and femininity is to be less effective, in my view. It is to bring less awareness of the Truth of causality and limit it to one’s own particular dualistic reality. Through what leap of faith are we to assume that a little over 50% (?) -- women; that is, biological females -- of the human population are doomed to unconsciousness by way of their biology? This, in itself, is an habitual belief leading not necessarily so effectively to Truth, but potentially only to further pain and pleasure.

When such a woman gets into an argument with someone proposing to propagate wisdom by way of declaring an inherent unconsciousness, this only serves to further tighten the wheels of karmic entrapment for both any man and woman involved. Unless, at that very moment of your insistence that a woman is unconscious, you are not deriving such a position from your own habitual dependencies: only in this way will any individual be effective at all in bringing about consciousness and thus propagating wisdom.

That is the difference between a politician and a wise man -- albeit perhaps in some cases a matter of degree.

[Matt Gregory]

Yes, and consequently are emotionally driven to do so. The key word here is obviously “habitual” and I would also imagine -- without having studied much Buddhism -- that this is exactly where the idea of “mindfulness” comes into play.

Yeah, I think you're right. "Mindfulness" is about remembering that things lack inherent existence.

In the propagation of wisdom, the reasoning person would always be asking the following question: does this action or thought serve to further bind or free self and others from this karmic cycle of habitual ignorance? When the mind of an individual is caught in the cycle of pain and pleasure, it is necessary to overcome it with Truth, and only Truth.

Well, it's pointless to speculate on how wisdom will be propagated before you have wisdom. You can't propagate an idea if you don't know what it is.

[Leyla Shen]

Yeah, I think you're right. "Mindfulness" is about remembering that things lack inherent existence.

Well, I had intended on giving it a little more meaning than that. I think it's one thing to remember that all things lack inherent existing, and quite another to be mindful of your habitual tendencies at the same time.

Well, it's pointless to speculate on how wisdom will be propagated before you have wisdom. You can't propagate an idea if you don't know what it is.

I don't think it's pointless, at all. I think that's probably a big part of it. How will anyone possibly become wise in order to propogate wisdom otherwise? Are you saying that the unwise will forever be unwise?

Do you see absolutely no wisdom in the following statement?

In the propagation of wisdom, the reasoning person would always be asking the following question: does this action or thought serve to further bind or free self and others from this karmic cycle of habitual ignorance? When the mind of an individual is caught in the cycle of pain and pleasure, it is necessary to overcome it with Truth, and only Truth.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, I think you're right. "Mindfulness" is about remembering that things lack inherent existence.

Well, I had intended on giving it a little more meaning than that. I think it's one thing to remember that all things lack inherent existing, and quite another to be mindful of your habitual tendencies at the same time.

Well, I would recommend dealing with the habit of not thinking of the lack of inherent existence all the time first. That's the most important bad habit to deal with. It's meaningless because you have provide the meaning with yourself. You have to transform yourself into the meaning.

Well, it's pointless to speculate on how wisdom will be propagated before you have wisdom. You can't propagate an idea if you don't know what it is.

I don't think it's pointless, at all. I think that's probably a big part of it. How will anyone possibly become wise in order to propogate wisdom otherwise? Are you saying that the unwise will forever be unwise?

No, you have to become enlightened before you try to enlighten others. If you try to enlighten others before you enlighten yourself, you'll just engage yourself and everyone in a useless distraction. Don't pay any attention to others. Just ignore them.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. - Matthew 7:3-5

If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. - Matthew 15:14

Do you see absolutely no wisdom in the following statement?

If you're not fully immersed in Ultimate Reality such that your whole life and the lives of everyone around you have been totally annihilated, you know the universe inside and out and you can lay down the philosophical burden, then you don't have any wisdom. There's no such thing as partial wisdom.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt: Well, it's pointless to speculate on how wisdom will be propagated before you have wisdom. You can't propagate an idea if you don't know what it is.

Leyla: I don't think it's pointless, at all. I think that's probably a big part of it. How will anyone possibly become wise in order to propagate wisdom otherwise? Are you saying that the unwise will forever be unwise?

Matt: No, you have to become enlightened before you try to enlighten others. If you try to enlighten others before you enlighten yourself, you'll just engage yourself and everyone in a useless distraction. Don't pay any attention to others. Just ignore them.

But, Matt! I thought there was wisdom in your very last post -- as well as the quotes you provided.

There are only two possibilities here, a) you are enlightened (wise); or, b) you are propagating wisdom through speculating how wisdom will be propagated before you have it ("partial wisdom").

[DHodges]

There's no such thing as partial wisdom.

I have to disagree with that.

If wisdom were completely a yes/no affair, with no transition, then wisdom would be something that has inherent existence.

Kevin (and others) have laid out a path that leads toward wisdom. If you are heading on that path, haven't you made a wise decision? And so, don't you have at least some small degree of wisdom, which you can build on and grow?

Or is that path actually completely foolish?

[Matt Gregory]

I DO NOT EXISTS!

Ask question, ignore the answers...just kidding.

Wisdom exists in the same way as 1+1=2. You either understand it or you don't.

The spiritual path is foolish from beginning to end, but it's necessary if you want to become enlightened. It's a necessary evil. Until you have wisdom, all you have is views.

The biggest problem on the spiritual path is falling into fixed, arbitrary views. We all have a strong tendency to do this because it's comfortable, but it will bring you to a complete standstill. That's why I like posting here, to try and get rid of these fixed I've fallen into. I'm not trying to enlighten anyone. I'm just talking about my views. If they make sense to you, think about them, and if they don't, kick my ass or ignore me or whatever. I'm not defending my views to convince people of them, I'm defending them to get people to launch a more direct attack on them so I can get to the bottom of them. It's all purely selfish.

Wisdom can't be contained by any view. Views lack inherent existence, so if you want to get beyond them, you should look for their origins. If you know that a view can be traced back to Truth then it's a different thing from Truth, so it's not Truth. If you know that a view cannot be traced back to Truth, then the view is false and you can forget about it. If you're in doubt as to whether or not it can find its origin in Truth, then you have a problem.

Don't trust anything no matter how plausible it sounds. The slightest mistake and you'll be off by what might as well be 100,000 miles. There's no margin for error in 1+1=2. It's not 2.1, it's not 2.01, it's not 2.001, it's not 2.0 followed by zeroes stretching from here to the other side of the galaxy and ending with a 1. All of these are just plain wrong.

[DHodges]

I DO NOT EXISTS!

Ask question, ignore the answers...just kidding.

You had me going there, for a second.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh my fucking God, he's still got me goin'!

You do sound just like unknown!

But I'm not sure if that's the scariest thing about it...

:)

[Matt Gregory]

I don't think there's really anything fundamentally wrong with what Unknown says. The way I read him, he's just saying to do koan study. I think you could probably gain some realization by just asking yourself questions as long as you applied yourself relentlessly and passionately enough. I just question his methods for getting people to do this. I also wonder if he has asked himself enough questions. He seems pretty well stuck in fixed views to me. I also wonder if there's not a limit to what you can achieve with that method.

[Jamesh]

There's no margin for error in 1+1=2.

There is a margin of error in everything. Thinking truth is TRUTH is the error of taking a single viewpoint.

1+1 = 2 is correct.
1+1 = 1 is also correct (as in 1 puddle added to another puddle = 1 puddle or 6+6 = 1 dozen or 1 + 1 = 1 set).

[Matt Gregory]

James,

There is a margin of error in everything.

Everything except logic. Anything logical reduces down to either/or. For example, anything with a margin of error becomes a question of either being within the margin or not.

Thinking truth is TRUTH is the error of taking a single viewpoint.

I wasn't saying truth is TRUTH, just that they both have the same property of being either/or.

1+1 = 2 is correct.
1+1 = 1 is also correct (as in 1 puddle added to another puddle = 1 puddle or 6+6 = 1 dozen or 1 + 1 = 1 set).

Only numbers can be arithmetically added. A dozen is defined to be 12. You're comparing apples and oranges on that one.

[sevens]

Core of abstraction = Definition.

Bounded. to reach an Unbounded mind

Yin and Yang, paused on a turntable, scratched -

Then spun.

[Jamesh]

sevens

I think my goal should be to destroy you. I am that close to taking you on.

Either say something that is not open to a massive range of interpretation or die. Your only excuse for being such a fuckwit is that you are not good at english.

I find you and 'unknown' (probably some other manifestation of you) to be the most obnoxious personalities here, far more so than Marsha for instance.

[Blair]

sevens only speaks in riddles. If there is something behind it, perhaps he could explain it, because it doesnt reveal anything much on analysis except something resembling a brain-fart.

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

Matt: There's no margin for error in 1+1=2.

James: There is a margin of error in everything.

One assumes, then, that this statement has a margin of error as well?

If it does, can it still have any meaning?

If it doesn't, can it still have any meaning?

Thinking truth is TRUTH is the error of taking a single viewpoint.

From which perspective are you asserting this?

Is it true for all perspectives? Or just one of them?

What do you think?

1+1 = 2 is correct.
1+1 = 1 is also correct (as in 1 puddle added to another puddle = 1 puddle or 6+6 = 1 dozen or 1 + 1 = 1 set).

If you look carefully, you will see that "1+1=1" only works through sleight-of-hand trickery. What happens is that the 1's on the left-hand side of the equation refer to a different set of entities to that which is represented by the 1 on the other side. Because of this, the equation is invalid.

For example, if we add 1 apple to another apple, we naturally get 2 apples. The "1+1=1" statement, however, pushes this truth aside and replaces it with a souped-up trick. In essence, it states that:

1 apple + 1 apple = 1 pair, or 1 group of fruit, or 1 "jwfheuheg", or 1 whatever it may be.

As a statement about the mathematical logic of 1+1=2, it has nothing to say. This is because it immediately invalidates itself by changing the terms of reference half-way through the process. It is the sort of thing that politicians, crooked lawyers and shonky real estate agents underhandedly engage in. I'm disappointed, James, that you are still making use of these spurious forms of reasoning in order to cover over the nature of truth. I wonder what your motivation is.

In the case of the two puddles, room is made for sleight-of-hand trickery by the broadness of the term "puddle". A puddle can refer to any number of volumes of water. So in this instance, the "1+1=1" statement ignores the fact that the size and weight of the new puddle has been proportionately increased, and buries itself instead in the ambiguity of the term, "puddle". Again, as a statement about mathematical logic, or the truth of 1+1=2, it has nothing to say.

-

[Matt Gregory]

I think the basic problem with the adding is that the word "add" has multiple meanings. Adding water to a puddle isn't the same as mathematically adding two numbers.

From what I've heard, in quantum mechanics they can add two particles together and there's no telling what they'll get. It could be 1, 2, 3 or more particles. If objects could be added in the same way numbers are, then science could disprove mathematics, since "adding" would be a universal principle or something.

[sevens]

To the Naysayers!

Pardon my expression.

English:

When you add two particles together (yin and yang) you arrive (pause) at an unlimited variable (spin).

This process occurs in the mind during abstract thought.

A spinning gyroscope :)

[sue hindmarsh]

Matt,

Let’s say that science discovers a new “adding universal principle”.

What do you think will change?

Will it add to your wisdom?

Or just add more diversions?

Sue

[Matt Gregory]

It would just be another piece of newspeak that would make it more difficult to explain to someone why 1+1=2 is certain and has no margin for error.

[sevens]

This new "universal adding principle" could be, the height of all wisdom.

Purpose is essential.

You must begin with an X.

Classical mechanics of the mind + a Quantum understanding of the mind

(Classical = Causal Understanding, Quantum = Photon Emisson

Command)

[sevens]

http://www.integralscience.org/sacredsc ... itual.html

[David Quinn]

Should I even bother? It's a waste of time, I know .....

seven wrote:

This new "universal adding principle" could be, the height of all wisdom.

What is this? A drug-addled thought? A whimsical fancy? Evidence of mental illness? An incoherent array of meaningless data?

I'm sure there is meaning there. It is not just a dog barking in the distance. There has to be something there. Has to be. Is there?

Zen Master Seven, miraculously unsure of the heights of wisdom, suddenly speculates that an as-yet-undiscovered mathematical operation could - possibly, perhaps, maybe - constitute - in a matter not yet explained - the height of all wisdom.

Well, there you have it. If only the enlightened sages and Buddhas in the past knew. It could have really helped them.

I'm sorry, seven, I'm interrupting. Please carry on with your poetic musings about the infinite mind and the like.

-