GENIUS FORUMS

When a hypnotherapist hypnotises a client, he/she uses Language...this 'spell binding' effect of Language is trying to give the client a New Script or an alternate Script to the Script the Client 'received' as a Child...by his Culture.

A Script that would constitute more of a 'Winning Formula' than the 'received' Childhood Script that the Client felt was 'Losing'...

It's a bunch of formulations, concepts, ideas the Ego can grasp to live into...heck, you can even picture yourself as a rabbit...as if that could Win.

This hypnotic effect of Language is what is being 'awakened' to in Buddhist, Taoist, Zen terms...the mind is dehypnotised.

Awakened to the Absurdity of it..of Language.

When a questing, eager Tyro approached the Taoist Master 'gushing' his Ego's formulations, concepts...the Master would slap his face. This was to give the Tyro a 'confrontation with the Absurd'..
In the same way the Koan is simply that.

When you 'get it' a deep, protracted laughing arises from the belly and the mind opens.

A Thing is a Think.
To Think is to Thingify.
To Reify is to Thing.
A Think is a unit of thought in the same way an inch is a unit of measurement.

The Universe is not something that can be broken up into things the way Language breaks it up.
The Universe is not the sum total of things.

Of course to 'understand' the Universe we break it up in order to describe it but we must remember what we are doing in doing that...we might even start thinking heads and hearts are separate or masculinity/femininity are separate...you might even start thinking you, yourself, is separate..heck, you might even feel that you are separate...how deluded could you get?

frank

Saddened by sad faces today I went wandering my way, taking with me my truth that where there is experience there is an experiencer. There is no tyranny in the form this truth takes, how couldn't it be open to form? To forms? Why shouldn't truth burst forth? If there is only experience, as some twisting maintain, then there are experiencers!

:D

suergaz wrote:Saddened by sad faces today I went wandering my way, taking with me my truth that where there is experience there is an experiencer. There is no tyranny in the form this truth takes, how couldn't it be open to form? To forms? Why shouldn't truth burst forth? If there is only experience, as some twisting maintain, then there are experiencers!

:D

I’m hardly moved as one is moved by the intoxication of forms that which is not, for intoxications lies not in forms, but the experience of knowing that they are forms.

So much for an expereincer, hard enough to find even in an English Dictionary. :D

Frank,



Exactly

Exactly

Exactly

Exactly

Exactly

and Exactly!

(I'm not exactly wasting a post, simply expressing an understadnig)

:)

Oh, you are so "wasting a post." But it's not the first one!

Sapius wrote:

You thought correctly.

No. Your Ego is bigger than you care to admit.

You’re talking shit, Sapius. Slow the fuck down and think about it. (Man, seems my memory’s big enough for the both of us.)

Earlier, you said:

It is not the collectiveness, but the collectivity that is Reality, in and of the Now. Simply put, All things are Reality, but Reality is not a Thing. But we cannot help but think in those terms, since we predominantly and essentially are a thing, and it is difficult to think beyond our thing-ness, but not impossible.

What I fail to understand is how can otherwise a seemingly sane person not see that one has to necessarily use logic and reasoning to understand, explain or justify even the truth in and of there experiences itself! Our experience cannot be an experience unless processed through thought, beginning with conscious awareness of the self, a logical deduction in itself, even if one is dead sure that he is dreaming, or one with everything else, or does not exist in whatsoever form.

And now you attempt to pull this off with a straight face (well, with one that can't stop laughing at itself):

Sapius: No, No - THING is experiencing any thing at all Leyla. You have to go back to school as far as realizing that Nothing INHERENTLY exists so to speak, but yet there is EXPERIENCE. It is created through the duality of all that there is, so no-thing is actually experiencing as such, except say pure experiencing happening in and of the NOW.

Remember this:

Sapius to me (!): This is the problem that arises when one cannot super-impose two different perspectives into one super-imposed perspective, and keeps forgetting one or the other, hence seeing contradictions, or regress.

Hello?

~

Sapius: Simply reference points, in and of Reality, and yet, reference points really think quite something of themselves.

For the purposes of this particular discussion, I don't care how you have defined "self," but you have defined it -- by necessity.

.

frank wrote:The Universe is not something that can be broken up into things the way Language breaks it up.

Why not? Why bother about a Universe one can never be conscious about? Language is a manifestation of consciousness, a further structure, an attempt to manifest...

And true Zen is highly conscious of language, it's very precise; it's sacred word art. It doesn't want to undo language, just like it doesn't want to undo thinking or awareness. It wants to, challenge, uproot, sharpen it, chisel it. No undoing but an affirmation, a duel, a demonstration of razor sharp consciousness manifested in words for those contemporaries that might benefit from it.

There's no Zen saying that is absurd and it promotes language instead of degrading it. That is, if one is penetrating the deeper layers. For the layman the surface looks absurd, she want to shop thinking about it and surely wants the Zen saying to contain this authority: that it would be okay to stop going further, and still claiming understanding.

But effectively the layman just killed the Zen.

Frank, you're killing Zen and consciousness with every breath you write. And you don't know it!

frank wrote: Of course to 'understand' the Universe we break it up in order to describe it but we must remember what we are doing in doing that...we might even start thinking heads and hearts are separate or masculinity/femininity are separate...you might even start thinking you, yourself, is separate..heck, you might even feel that you are separate...how deluded could you get?

How deluded can you get, Frank?

All Understanding is separation
All Remembering is separation
All Thinking is separation
All Feeling is separation
All Sensing is separation
All Consciousness is separation

Can't get around it. One can fool oneself into believing in achieved unity, sensing unity, feeling unity...... but it's only a dream Frank. Waking up is only seeing things as they are, that's all.

We're born out of separation and all that comes with it, sensing, feeling and more advanced mental movements like thinking, is only some further or more twisted separation. And then we die leaving separation and all that came with it behind.

Life ('extropy', consciousness) is the masculine, death (entropy) is feminine. Choose life or remain dead!

Diebert,

All Understanding is separation
All Remembering is separation
All Thinking is separation
All Feeling is separation
All Sensing is separation
All Consciousness is separation

Yes to alll.

Could you please read my last post in 'human worth' and comment on it. I would very much appreciate your view point, I know it may not be up to that mark linguistically, but still.

Life ('extropy', consciousness) is the masculine, death (entropy) is feminine. Choose life or remain dead!

This subject of femininity and masculinity was the first one that initially made me notice David reading the genius-L list, and the first topic I had a discussion on the first genius board. Although we agreed on almost all points, I then had a slight difference, which I still have. I will try to express it in a new thread.

.

There is an experiencer, first, always. Experiencing is a property of a thing; it comes forth from the thing in interface with other things existing world; the thing must be in existence first.

The property cannot come into being before the thing that brings it forth. Experiencing is a property of existing things.

To use an old argument with Nick regarding gravity - gravity does not exist prior to the bodies that manifest it. Gravity comes about because of those bodies being manifest in the world. Gravity is a property of their existence; it comes with and after them. It is the result of their existence.

frank is right; everything is activity.

and frank, do you know how to "step back a rung?"
:)
you know, a fair few can arrive to the "error" (the folly, the hilarity) and look out with grandiose superiority [with what they can see past]. But even fewer can step back a rung to fully appreciate the view. One cannot appreciate it, by having done with it. Unless you want an end to your own hilarity, and I doubt you do ;)

.
[edit: additional phrase]

.
(for parodic example & edification)

Humans, they are hilarious. They even don't realize that all they are is a collection of organ bags and miles of gooey veins strung together with gelatin and mucus. They don't even realize their gum flapping is just bones and muscles connected to the synapses in their brains; they don't even think about their 60 feet of intestines and the sludge coursing through them. Rip the head off of one of them, and all that gorp comes stringing out and not a thought in sight. All this trouble they make for themselves, these humans, thinking they are anything more than this. If they'd just realize they're only this bag of bones and tissue, just lumps of protoplasm and if I ripped the head off of one of them, they'd just die, well if they'd just realize this, all their problems would vanish and all their happiness would abound . . . .

:)

Sapius wrote:
Could you please read my last post in 'human worth' and comment on it. I would very much appreciate your view point, I know it may not be up to that mark linguistically, but still.

This subject of femininity and masculinity was the first one that initially made me notice David reading the genius-L list, and the first topic I had a discussion on the first genius board. Although we agreed on almost all points, I then had a slight difference, which I still have. I will try to express it in a new thread.

Okay. Looking forward to read your view on it as well.

pye:

you know, a fair few can arrive to the "error" (the folly, the hilarity) and look out with grandiose superiority [with what they can see past]. But even fewer can step back a rung to fully appreciate the view. One cannot appreciate it, by having done with it. Unless you want an end to your own hilarity, and I doubt you do ;)

Step back a rung....did you just fail to do that?

grandiose superiority...did you just do that?

It's hilarious alright.

frank

.

Actually, frank, what I failed to do was credit Nietzsche for both this idea, and the word "grandiose," but that's okay if you don't want to laugh with me instead of just with yourself ;)

If you've got a copy of Human, All Too Human, it's aphorism #20.

And yes, I suppose you're right anyway. So now what do we do? If the rung is language and its stability has just been laughingly dismissed, what is there to say any further?

.
[edit: typo]

diebert:

All Understanding is separation
All Remembering is separation
All Thinking is separation
All Feeling is separation
All Sensing is separation
All Consciousness is separation

Yeah, that's how the Ego 'sees' it.

diebert:

We're born out of separation and all that comes with it

We're born out of the Earth in the same way apples are produced from the apple tree.
We are intensely interdependant...the feeling of separation is the illusion..and that gets created by Language...

Tell a 6 year old boy who has no 'antibodies' to Language...tell him that he is a 'Sissy'...
He will resent that intensely.
You have just separated him by 'naming' him...
In the same way Praise separates...

The 'I' is a product of Language.

The Word is spellbinding.
Are we the Victims of Spelling?...hehe

A Thing gets it's Thingness by way of it's being Nouned and Adjectived.

Zen Language is skillfully put together with the Intent to 'wake' you rather than 'bind' you...

There is no North and South, East and West...unless you want to 'thing it'...

Do your own thing...hehe

frank

frank

pye:

And yes, I suppose you're right anyway. So now what do we do? If the rung is language and its stability has just been laughingly dismissed, what is there to say any further?

I'm sure we can make something up....as an activity of course...
we could grow a beard.

frank

"Philosophy is a kind of revenge versus reality ...Nietsche wrote full energy, high-spirited. One dreams to have a power, which one does not possess in the reality.

Your Pye Project of linking Nietsche to Zen delights me as an Activity.

Wouldn't it be fruitful to know the prior causes or influences that served as Contents in the Minds of the Great philosophers and had them making leaps of imagination...creative leaps in mental visualisation...
...how this led to that...the great chain of Meaning Making...this wonderful attempt at getting it all under control...


Wittgenstein thought Language was tautology.

Imagine an alien who knows nothing of our world.

I say to alien, "Let my tell you about my daughter Sophie, who is human like me."

Alien responds
"What do you mean by human?"

I say, "Humans are animals."

Alien responds, "What are animals?"

I explain, "Animals are complexly evolved arrangements of matter."
(the whole Darwinian Evolution thing could be added but the tautology just becomes larger, so I will keep it simple.)

Alien is frustrated, perplexed, "What is matter?"
Thinking alien is pretty stupid, and needs to study physics.

I say,
"Matter is made of protons, electrons, neutrons."

Alien, "What are protons electrons neutrons?"

Now eventually I begin to realise my own ignorance and that I can either say;
"I don't actually know!"
or I can complete the tautological circle by saying that
"Protons, electrons, and neutrons are the matter of which Sophie, a human animal, is constructed."

Remarkably, most people don't realise that language has no underlying/fundamental meaning, that it is a tautology. (As is mathematics!)

And this is the current state of Postmodern Philosophy. Where the only solution is to point at Sophie and say, "That is Sophie."

The Alien is then better satisfied, as Alien can now correctly relate the grunting noise I make (Sophie) to the object Alien observes, that I am pointing at.

Alien says, "So that gorgeous little object over there is your daughter Sophie."

frank

Pye wrote:.

Humans, they are hilarious. They even don't realize that all they are is a collection of organ bags and miles of gooey veins strung together with gelatin and mucus. They don't even realize their gum flapping is just bones and muscles connected to the synapses in their brains; they don't even think about their 60 feet of intestines and the sludge coursing through them. Rip the head off of one of them, and all that gorp comes stringing out and not a thought in sight. All this trouble they make for themselves, these humans, thinking they are anything more than this. If they'd just realize they're only this bag of bones and tissue, just lumps of protoplasm and if I ripped the head off of one of them, they'd just die, well if they'd just realize this, all their problems would vanish and all their happiness would abound . . . .

:)

(for parodic example & edification)

Placing those words in brackets tells me about your humble nature, for what you have said, is actually very profound, and you know it.

You are indeed a good teacher, I hope all your students realize that, and see the depth of understanding in your words.

I had opted for special geography, in I think the 8th grade, and today I couldn't thank my teacher enough. She passed away about 8 years ago, but what she taught me has helped me map Existence, for it was the way she gave examples teaching geography. She too was a philosopher in her own right.

I never said that there is no Thing. Thing-ness (experiencing) of a thing (experencer), is already incorporated in that expression itself. Although I do not kind of disagree if replaced with the word 'Activity', but that does not actually represent how I see existence, because that, kind of excludes that which makes it possible, and I actually exclude NOTHING in that expression, 'experiencing', but that is I. I would appreciate your point of view in this matter. And, also on my the last post, the middle part, regarding how the concept of “void” “Emptiness” “Tao” comes about, and how or why one cannot communicate such personal understandings necessarily influenced by previously, already executed unique Thing related causes. In the 'humans worth' thread.

Understanding something is one thing, but expressing a kind of Realization that one may communicate to another in a meaningful manner that would make perfect logical sense to another is absolutely a different thing, because that person (thing1) is not the same (thing2) created by Exactly the same casual conditions, and a thing, which is already a slave to it’s own casual conditions, cannot MAKE or CREATE a causal condition for another thing, because that thing2 has a certain amount of freedom of choice through the possibility of accepting or rejecting a certain concept, because it has be given a faculty or reason that allows such freedom. All a thing can do is, express his own understandings to the best of his capabilities, and throw his expressions in the open market, which may or may not be accepted by another thing, that is, become an accepted as a cause, since he CAN reject it through reason and logic based on his own accepted and rejected causes.

That does not mean that reason is not ruled by causality, but a faculty defined as Reason is true by definition, that is indeed created through causality, but allows certain freedom through introduction and possibility of conceptualization, a much elevated form of the basic A=A, that lies at the heart of absolutely everything one can think or imagine.

What you have said above is actually all that is to be realized, which when actually and fully realized, should conceptually separate the thing-ness from the Thing, say a final separation, but yet, at the same time, fully realizes that what one is saying, is necessarily because of all that (insert all what you have said above) fact. Super-imposing!

This is what I call 'super-imposing', for both the thoughts must exist simultaneously, which removes the mystery generated through contradictions so to speak, seen as an impossibility when logically thought as a logical impossibility of two thoughts existing simultaneously.

Now that "super-imposing" itself seems impossible since one cannot logically accept that that is possible to begin with, since it is not possible to have two different thoughts at the same time, forgetting that TIME does not actually exist, which he might have fully understood as a separate though, but has not actually realized it. For me, it is not that difficult or complicated to work or operate form a single Realization that is the sum-total of many smaller realizations, but I do realize how difficult that can be, I know, I have been through it. Yes, a really huge hurdle is to be cross over, without actually abandoning any logic as such, and no other being can help another with THAT Exactly, for the reasons I mention above.

PS: I wouldn’t underestimate Frank, generally speaking, no one else for that matter, he is not what he seems to be, seen from the point of view of the superficial words or style of delivery he uses. But again, that is I, one could always have an alternate opinion, (Ironically, because he is an Absolute slave to causality, and does not realize or accept an apparent freedom of thought created through Reasoning, which is also created by causality. Quite confusing, but when realized, opens the doors to a laughter that resides permanently. Isn’t that an illogical statement? Well… sue me!), and mine is just that, an opinion, including all that I say above.

Happy Experiencing! To One and All, any ways, and Sad for the ones who put faith in Happiness.

Again, a contradiction, eh? Well, sue me twice.

It is not the laughter, neither an happiness as such, but a state of mind that can ironically be expressed through a single and simple emoticon.......... :)

A permanently tranquil smile absolutely free of false ego.

Try it!

It's actually absolutely free, hence worthless, or valueless, be your own judge, nothing else really matters.

Leyla,

No. Your Ego is bigger than you care to admit.

Thank you, but which ego are you talking about, Leyla? Just as all that exists in separation, for me Ego is Only A=A, and the rest is False-Ego.

If you are talking of the False Ego, I really cannot find any, let alone be it. Does that make me a “wossy”? An embodiment of femininity? Since I don't react like a "MAN"?

“Go fuck your self! Your Ego is bigger than a donkey’s dick. You don’t know what the fucken fuck you are fucking talking about.” And the likes… Is THAT masculinity in your opinion? I bet it is! And that is what you think masculinity is all about and try to act accordingly, forgetting or not realizing the Genius or sublime nature found in “femininity” itself, which most don't, because they analyze that through a False Ego rather than Ego, and think they are doing it the other way around, because they place that as an inferior trait, because of preconceived values that Masculinity is superior, because MAN has always placed himself in that position, and WOMAN has been accepting that. But tell me this, are you not working with logic and reasoning? Although you posses a pussy. So how does Reasoning become some greater masculine trait? Speaking in the context of understanding Reality, aren't Most, Most, men lacking that trait?

It is true that a Man is a bit more ruthless than Woman, but that is not masculinity, it’s stupidity in my opinion. Be it expressed in action or words.

Please don’t argue to justify your personal standings otherwise, otherwise, you leave me no choice other than to respond like wise if you chose to keep speaking in those "masculine" terms. Otherwise my response to your STATEMENT should have been. “How the fuck do you know”, and on and on we go around.

Calm down now… please… don’t take it personally, which means, don’t let your false ego be agitated, actually.

All one has to do is eliminate the “separation” conceptually, which is absolutely possible, without actually breaking up any thing at all.

It is the sum-total that one has to conceptualize, not go over and over with bits and pieces of understandings that SEEM contradictory when logic is applied individually.

You have no idea how your relentless questioning on separate issues may eventually create a single concept, which is what is actually needed to climb up the stairs towards it. Only that a false predigest which apparently fluctuates from time to time, that reflect sometimes as calm and analyzed statements against those abrupt judgments resulting from looking at a thing from single point of view as a single stand alone thing, which actually is not.

You have no idea that the greatest insult that one could conjure up will actually have absolutely no effect on me. What does that say about my Ego? As far as my False Ego goes, I still remain a reactionary thing that reacts to things, Logically, including using emotions for logical reasons where there is a logical demand.

Now I know you might ask how can one use emotions logically? I know that is difficult to understand, but as I mentioned to Diebert, I will post a thread on what I mean, so question it there, BUT please remember, that too is also not a stand alone thing when seen from the point of view of Reality = Literally All that there IS, in and of as NOW.

I am not asking you to simply accept what I’m saying, but think on each individual matter, and simultaneously see all under the light of a single umbrella. That’s all. Which I cannot do for you, it has to be done on ones own.

Trust me, I’m not actually avoiding any of your other comments; one will know when one will know, and time has nothing to do with that.

Sapius,

L: No. Your Ego is bigger than you care to admit.

S: Thank you, but which ego are you talking about, Leyla? Just as all that exists in separation, for me Ego is Only A=A, and the rest is False-Ego.

If you are talking of the False Ego, I really cannot find any, let alone be it. Does that make me a “wossy”? An embodiment of femininity? Since I don't react like a "MAN"?

“Go fuck your self! Your Ego is bigger than a donkey’s dick. You don’t know what the fucken fuck you are fucking talking about.” And the likes… Is THAT masculinity in your opinion? I bet it is!

You are stuck in the past and, therefore, the non-existent future. In fact, what I said to you was "slow the fuck down." Now, that doesn't mean I'd have a problem saying "go fuck yourself" if the causal conditions were ripe, but I haven't said it to you (yet). You have some repressed aggression? How big is a donkey's dick, by the way?

And that is what you think masculinity is all about and try to act accordingly,[snip]

I don’t try to act -- I act. That’s all. And I act toward truth. And the truth I have acted for in this discussion is that whilst you seem to hold that one sees contradiction and regress only when they cannot superimpose two ideas, that only applies when others are pointing out contradictions evident in your expressions. Ironically, it does not seem to cut both ways (despite the fact that my original statement was such a superimposition when given sufficient consideration), Sapius, in that where you see regress or contradiction in me, it is not a matter of your inability to superimpose, but a matter of my ignorance.

You will have to provide some better reasoning, I’m afraid.

That you are caused to take issue with what I say at the advent of profanity and to the ultimate exclusion of all other ideas expressed (unless they're coming out of your mouth or until sanctioned by your divine self) is your problem, not mine.

…forgetting or not realizing the Genius or sublime nature found in “femininity” itself, which most don't, because they analyze that through a False Ego rather than Ego, and think they are doing it the other way around, because they place that as an inferior trait, because of preconceived values that Masculinity is superior, because MAN has always placed himself in that position, and WOMAN has been accepting that.

How do you define Ego and False Ego?

But tell me this, are you not working with logic and reasoning? Although you posses a pussy. So how does Reasoning become some greater masculine trait? Speaking in the context of understanding Reality, aren't Most, Most, men lacking that trait?

Absolutely. I have never said otherwise.

It is true that a Man is a bit more ruthless than Woman, but that is not masculinity, it’s stupidity in my opinion. Be it expressed in action or words.

Please don’t argue to justify your personal standings otherwise, otherwise, you leave me no choice other than to respond like wise if you chose to keep speaking in those "masculine" terms. Otherwise my response to your STATEMENT should have been. “How the fuck do you know”, and on and on we go around.

Calm down now… please… don’t take it personally, which means, don’t let your false ego be agitated, actually.

Sapius, I am calm. Very calm, in fact. Get over yourself.

All one has to do is eliminate the “separation” conceptually, which is absolutely possible, without actually breaking up any thing at all.

It is the sum-total that one has to conceptualize, not go over and over with bits and pieces of understandings that SEEM contradictory when logic is applied individually.

You have no idea how your relentless questioning on separate issues may eventually create a single concept, which is what is actually needed to climb up the stairs towards it. Only that a false predigest which apparently fluctuates from time to time, that reflect sometimes as calm and analyzed statements against those abrupt judgments resulting from looking at a thing from single point of view as a single stand alone thing, which actually is not.

You have no idea that the greatest insult that one could conjure up will actually have absolutely no effect on me. What does that say about my Ego? As far as my False Ego goes, I still remain a reactionary thing that reacts to things, Logically, including using emotions for logical reasons where there is a logical demand.

Why, then, do you spend so much time addressing insults? Aside from that, refer above comments.

Now I know you might ask how can one use emotions logically?

No. In fact, since I came to this board I have held that as true. Pye remembers, why don’t you?

I know that is difficult to understand, but as I mentioned to Diebert, I will post a thread on what I mean, so question it there,[snip]

I look forward to it.

BUT please remember, that too is also not a stand alone thing when seen from the point of view of Reality = Literally All that there IS, in and of as NOW.

I am not asking you to simply accept what I’m saying, but think on each individual matter, and simultaneously see all under the light of a single umbrella. That’s all. Which I cannot do for you, it has to be done on ones own.

Refer above comments.

Trust me, I’m not actually avoiding any of your other comments; one will know when one will know, and time has nothing to do with that.

Yes, I agree. You will know when you know but until then, time has everything to do with it for you.

.

Leyla,

L: No. Your Ego is bigger than you care to admit.

S: Thank you, but which ego are you talking about, Leyla? Just as all that exists in separation, for me Ego is Only A=A, and the rest is False-Ego.

If you are talking of the False Ego, I really cannot find any, let alone be it. Does that make me a “wossy”? An embodiment of femininity? Since I don't react like a "MAN"?

“Go fuck your self! Your Ego is bigger than a donkey’s dick. You don’t know what the fucken fuck you are fucking talking about.” And the likes… Is THAT masculinity in your opinion? I bet it is!

Leyla: You are stuck in the past and, therefore…… [SNIP]

Therefore what, Leyla? You pay so much attention to character reading ME that you even cannot see what is in front of your eyes!!! And ask….

How do you define Ego and False Ego?

Huh?! Look at the above in BOLD! Other than the word Quote that comes automatically in Bold.

Enjoy Existence!

I place a DND board for now as far as you are concerned.

:(

Diebert,

Okay. Looking forward to read your view on it as well.

Before I do that, wouldn’t you like to know why I said Yes to all…

All Understanding is separation
All Remembering is separation
All Thinking is separation
All Feeling is separation
All Sensing is separation
All Consciousness is separation

Although my previous post might have kind of suggested otherwise?

I would like to say it anyways…

It is kind of a final understanding, last nail in the coffin, the crux of the matter, the essence of Existence as I see it.

Any Thing is a Thing because of causality, which necessarily has the basic nature of All Things. (A=A, separated-ness), which is now a definable separated-ness through cognitive awareness, which further helps realize the true implications of the connectivity (caused) and reflective-ness (awareness), both created by a perpetually on the move Causality in and of the NOW. Hence is created an awareness of Things through and by other Things. Things to Things.

So Things must stand separated for awareness to take place, which would fall flat on its face otherwise, common sense actually.

Hence each Thing cannot be a Thing in itself, nor a Thing can be that that comprises All Thing’s, for then it would be aware of nothing for it looses its thing-ness. Making no logical sense in a No-thing creating some sort of a bubble of Awareness/Consciousness floating around or existing in all things. I find that Existence is a very sensible experience-able sensibility, because of the connected and separated-ness, existing in and of the absolutely Now.

(I might have a very “unorthodox” and supposedly unbelievable explanation to Unwise on his NDE, [I remember you mentioning Kundalini somewhere too,. What do you know about it?] which are not the same as have been discussed earlier. I might have to disclose certain aspects of my own experiences, making him not the only one to experience such things, which are absolutely Natural, with no need of religious overtones or “super” explanations at all. However, those who have not experienced such things, cannot even phantom what it actually is, hence the problem of understanding it, and the problem of explaining it in words. However, that's another story, but is connected to nartural existance, however.)

Hence, awareness has no feet to stand upon if there is no-thing to be aware of, and no thing that would be aware, hence no thing could actually be aware of All things because of its helplessness of being just a Thing, hence cannot be actually aware of (Have knowledge of) all Things. So, an absolute Awareness (even literally devoid of all Knowledge), which is not based in any particular thing but all Things at once, is an absolute impossibility, for that would then necessarily have to be a Thing “out side” of nature, which I cannot even imagine. Saying nature is aware or is awareness/consciousness means nothing in Reality, except a poetical expression.

That’s what makes perfect logical sense to me.

I apologize if there is some mix-up. It is not actually that easy to word such things, especially for me. :D

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

by
Shunryu Suzuki

"...there is no quality connecting you and me; when I say "you," there is no "I"; when I say "I," there is no "you." You are independent, and I am independent; each exists in a different moment. But this does not mean we are different beings. We are actually one and the same being. We are the same, yet different. It is very paradoxical, but actually it is so. Because we are independent beings, each one of us is a complete flashing into the vast phenomenal world. When I am sitting, there is no other person, but this does not mean I ignore you. I am completely one with every existence in the phenomenal world. So when I sit, you sit; everything sits with me. When you sit everything sits with you. And everything makes up a quality of your being. So in this practice we have absolute liberation from everything else. If you understand this secret there is no difference between Zen practice and your everyday life. You can interpret everything as you wish."

"...There is no gap between the ignorant and the wise. A foolish person is a wise person; a wise person is a foolish person. But usually we think, "He is foolish and I am wise," or "I was foolish, but now I am wise."

Steven,

I don’t exactly kwon what you are trying to allude to here, but I will however express my comments.

"...And there is no quality connecting you and me;

No there is, the quality of A=A. That is the quality of recognition through differentiation, and reaction.

when I say "you," there is no "I"; when I say "I," there is no "you." You are independent, and I am independent; each exists in a different moment.

No, there is only one moment, actually Alive, Now.

But this does not mean we are different beings. We are actually one and the same being.

“Being” as in what? A super-being?

We are the same, yet different.

No, we are different, yet the same. Big difference. And that does not make us ONE as in a mashed pulp of a super-saussage.

It is very paradoxical, but actually it is so.

This I don't understand at all. Why the "but"?

It should read..

It is very paradoxical, and actually it is so.

OR

It is very paradoxical, but actually it is not so.


My English is not that good. So you might have to give some expalnation. In simple prose, not poetry please. However. I see no paradox actually.

Because we are independent beings, each one of us is a complete flashing into the vast phenomenal world."

Considering all the above, this actually makes no sense to me.


PS: I take it you have edited your post, because the above was all that was in the original post. However, what you have edited in would not make much sense either considering the above, so I really don’t know what to say.

If you find truth, tranquility and peace in those words, then I sincerely say, good for you, but those words don’t do much to me.

If this is what Zen is all about, I'm glad I did not read any of it.

Ah! What actually activated the spark in me to explain my “Yes to all” is…. Diebert.

Life ('extropy', consciousness) is the masculine, death (entropy) is feminine. Choose life or remain dead!

Actually, once one operates from the I - Ego, which is all that remains after shedding all False-Ego, neither of the two are conceptulized as separate-things, however they may truly be otherwise. In fact, in a way canceling out the two opposites necessarily, because of their opposing attributes, hence no solid concept of life or death either remain.

I realy don't know how else to say it.

Sapius,

"...And there is no quality connecting you and me;

No there is, the quality of A=A. That is the quality of recognition through differentiation, and reaction.

Shunryu is saying that we should forget the heaviness of self, and attempt to realize our true being.

when I say "you," there is no "I"; when I say "I," there is no "you." You are independent, and I am independent; each exists in a different moment.

No, there is only one moment, actually Alive, Now.

When we can experience Now, and begin to appreciate our unique expression on a moment by moment basis, we can learn to give our selves some room to breathe.

But this does not mean we are different beings. We are actually one and the same being.

“Being” as in what? A super-being?

If you can use A=A, and the memory of A, in each moment, then you can have persons, animals, trees, plants as part of your mind.

Imagine a flowing body of water. If the mind is the water, and logically cannot be separated from itself, then all waves and ripples are a part of it. All phenomenon are in fact a part of the mind. They are the mind.

We are the same, yet different.

No, we are different, yet the same. Big difference. And that does not make us ONE as in a mashed pulp of a super-saussage.

Listen carefully to the way he phrases it.

He uses his method is to jump over the ego, allowing for the reader to better understand his teaching.

It is very paradoxical, but actually it is so.

This I don't understand at all. Why the "but"?

It should read..

It is very paradoxical, and actually it is so.

OR

It is very paradoxical, but actually it is not so.

My English is not that good. So you might have to give some expalnation. In simple prose, not poetry please. However. I see no paradox actually.

Shunryu uses the 'but' to remind the reader that although it is paradoxical, the logic of the teaching shouldn't get in the way of any attempt to understand. Usually when something is paradoxical, our reasoning faculty becomes too one-sided, which can disrupt our intuitive capability.

Because we are independent beings, each one of us is a complete flashing into the vast phenomenal world."

Considering all the above, this actually makes no sense to me.

Shunryu is saying that we should not think of ourselves as separate and independent.

But as individual and independent; which will allow us to feel connected to ourselves and others.

If you find truth, tranquility and peace in those words, then I sincerely say, good for you, but those words don’t do much to me.

If this is what Zen is all about, I'm glad I did not read any of it.

You should have read it!

Sapius wrote:Diebert,

Okay. Looking forward to read your view on it as well.

Before I do that, wouldn’t you like to know why I said Yes to all…

No, it wasn't any surprise to me you got my drift here. Even if our views might still differ here and there.

So Things must stand separated for awareness to take place, which would fall flat on its face otherwise, common sense actually.

The problem which I'm sure you're encountering when discussing this with people is how people somehow think that thought is a whole different world than feeling. Or sense ('direct') perception is somehow different than complex abstraction. This is caused by the immensely rare detachment that is needed from our core mental constructing to see there is no exception to the construct. There is only a difference in quality, a difference in how far the construct knows itself, and not what is outside the construct.

I find that Existence is a very sensible experience-able sensibility, because of the connected and separated-ness, existing in and of the absolutely Now.

Quite right.

(I might have a very “unorthodox” and supposedly unbelievable explanation to Unwise {diebert remarks: Beingof1 you mean?} on his NDE, [I remember you mentioning Kundalini somewhere too,. What do you know about it?]

It doesn't seem important enough to go into it right now. Unless someone here is really having problems with extreme manifestations of some kind, and suffering from it one way or another. But you're right into suggesting it's all connected to natural existence, once properly understood what's happening in every individual case.

I apologize if there is some mix-up. It is not actually that easy to word such things, especially for me. :D

It's fine. We all have that struggle which is also a challenge. What drives us to try? I wish more people would put such effort and self-criticism toward what they unleash on their keyboard.