GENIUS FORUMS

@Kelly Jones, I would say that perfect understanding and perfect application of that understanding to one's life, are the same. If you understand reality perfectly, you are also applying that understanding perfectly.

A person who finds perfect understanding hard to maintain doesn't have perfect understanding. Perfect understanding is not a function of time, so there is no sense in trying to maintain a perfect understanding for a period of time.

I was happy with the no-bee, no-bottle concept. I was looking at vast spaciousness within which all things rise and fall and an intricate web of cause and effect like latticework happened spontaneously.I accessed the experience of emptiness and felt contentment and felt I had arrived.
but then I realised I was looking at a structure.

Then you say prince:

The Bee and the Bottle are one and the same.

They appear to be seperate, distinct entities because your senses process a three-dimensional reality limited in frequency range, bound by the concept of time.

That means Structural Machinery and points to a Manufacturer prior to it.

Jupta,

Understanding and application are not the same.

If the understanding is not perfect, if it is not without flaws, then there is no application. There is only grasping.

Consider it. If imperfect understanding could become perfect through application, how would one know the application brought perfection except by referring back to the intellect's judgment? In which case, there would be a looping cycle of referring back to the imperfect understanding.

Application wills the intellectually perfect understanding to shine through all parts of oneself. The process can only occur if the understanding is already perfect. As more and more of oneself is enlightened by that timeless and perfect understanding, over time, the less contradiction throughout one's thoughts with that core understanding. When there are no more contradictions, then the application is perfect. This is something that happens over time.


...

Dennis,

How do you know what structure is? To what do you compare it?

Wittgenstein isn't saying that structures are used as ladders to take us to the ineffable. He used categories without seeing their interrelationships. He didn't recognise the illusion of his method. He built an immense ladder (a system), by ignoring the fundamental activity of interdependent origination. Namely, that asserting a thing relies on its opposite for its existence. So his conclusion, of not speaking whereof one doesn't know, was his desperate final collapse, where he realised that he hadn't really gotten anywhere with all his category assertions. He started wrongly, and kept building wrongly, until he had a huge edifice of errors.

This might interest you.


.

How do you know what structure is? To what do you compare it?

Thanks for your direction even tho' there's the possibility I lack the capacity.

Here's where I'm at, I get some of the QRS conversation but not all of it yet.
Just to frame it, I see the first person ME, the 2nd person YOU or OTHER and third person IT, in this case the IT is 'reality'.
Some people say the answer is in ME so I went for a look and found only profound ignorance, so I go to Others who give me structures of 'it' that don't satisfy for long.

I'm looking for a structure that corresponds to reality and delivers Serenity/Certainty.
So what a structure is, is like a picture pasted up on a blank wall, a background of profound ignorance. something superimposed over nothing to fix profound ignorance.
A structure that resonates must include absolute or first principle that all things relate to, in which all things unite. This at least delivers Serenity, peace and warmth.

In contrast our dear friend Alex denies Absolute and calls structure, 'platform' which gives rise to performer/performance. Which is cynical and basically nihilist, also one who lives from that seems to tend toward aggressive, rude, argumentative behaviour and deaf to all else.
So that picture can't work, denying absolute that is.


I'll read Huang Po with interest.

@Kelly Jones, an imperfect understanding would lead to a perfect application of that imperfect understanding, but an imperfect application of perfect understanding.

I don't understand what you mean by more and more parts of oneself becoming enlightened. One is either enlightened(has perfect understanding) or not. If one is not enlightened, then one has to try to become enlightened.

Well, Kelly, Huang Po has clipped me over the ear with his wake up call.
Omigod. I'm experiencing a recognition of how foolish I've been.

If I'm conceptualising and building structures, all it means is I'm conceptualising and building structures.
If I'm seeking clarity all it means is I'm seeking clarity.
All this going on is just going on.

thankyou.

Hi Kelly,
The ancient Greeks seemed to split into 2 streams.
Heraclitas said 'it is not possible to step twice into the same river' meaning the particles of water that wash against you on Monday are not the particles of water that wash against you on Tuesday.
By that he was saying that Reality itself flows like a river.Nothing is permanent, fixed or stable.

Plato took offence and said, well if you called the river the Thompson River you could step into it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday ad infinitum, thus giving rise to permanance, fixedness, stability.

But really Plato. 'Thompson River' necessarily requires a human being to exist prior to it to call it that . 'Thompson River' depends on human being, can't exist without human being. And there's prior to human being because I only need to ask 'who/what beats my heart?' to realise that I don't.

From Huang Po's revelation One Mind can we say that these streams simply arise as aspects of the totality, are not significant in any way, that the infinite remains pure and untouched by this rambling of idiots. Not even the tiniest dent or scratch or mark put on the infinite.

Am I demonstrating capacity and on the road to perfect understanding by saying such things?

There's a story from Science that a few quarks mingled that caused atoms that caused molecules that caused cells that caused organs that caused bodies, surely that points to a stunning intelligence at play, surely that points to a Me that is a product of that, that there is not a me independant of that, that there really is no-one here.
That a Me exists only by thinking it so, a false convention of thinking, a bad habit.
If I say I did it, he did it, she did it, they did it....I have ascribed a false sense of authorship to the various pronouns.

The authorship is prior to I, he, she, they. Surely.

Is that pretty much it Kelly, prince?

Empirical stuff seems consistent, and demonstrable to others, because human consciousness is generally similar among humans. We all have similar brain structures. So we tend to experience the world generally similarly. Thus, we have reliable natural laws, like gravity, the weather, thermodynamics, evolution, death, and so forth. It's not that these laws exist objectively, in some perfect empirical form outside of human consciousness. But there is a consistency there, because our human brains perceive something in the same basic way.

Empirical stuff is real and reliable, in the sense of really appearing to mind, and having existential substance. But note that each person has an unique subjective experience of the world, which is the only way they can judge what is real and consistent. So the reliability and consistency of the empirical world comes down to the experiences and thoughts of oneself - the judgments of one mind.

Such a mind also experiences selfhood as an empirical phenomenon - as a thought appearing to mind. For sometimes, one does not appear to mind. So, one is like a dead man - a consciousness without self. So both things and self are real as substantial existences appearing to mind --- they're not hallucinations or dreams. Neither things nor the self are illusions. They do present an appearance. They're not falsehoods.

Ultimate Reality is made of empirical stuff - and nonempirical stuff. It's not something separate from things. Everything is the very body and fabric of Reality. The point is to be able to see the true nature of stuff, to see God in things. Things are God.


.

Thanks for the kindness, guidance, clarity of that speaking.
There's neither nook nor cranny that isn't God saturated for it can be no other way.
Now is the moment for dwelling.
To dwell in the Infinite.

Kelly Jones wrote:Empirical stuff seems consistent, and demonstrable to others, because human consciousness is generally similar among humans. We all have similar brain structures. So we tend to experience the world generally similarly. Thus, we have reliable natural laws, like gravity, the weather, thermodynamics, evolution, death, and so forth. It's not that these laws exist objectively, in some perfect empirical form outside of human consciousness. But there is a consistency there, because our human brains perceive something in the same basic way.

Empirical stuff is real and reliable, in the sense of really appearing to mind, and having existential substance. But note that each person has an unique subjective experience of the world, which is the only way they can judge what is real and consistent. So the reliability and consistency of the empirical world comes down to the experiences and thoughts of oneself - the judgments of one mind.

Such a mind also experiences self-hood as an empirical phenomenon - as a thought appearing to mind. For sometimes, one does not appear to mind. So, one is like a dead man - a consciousness without self. So both things and self are real as substantial existences appearing to mind --- they're not hallucinations or dreams. Neither things nor the self are illusions. They do present an appearance. They're not falsehoods.

Ultimate Reality is made of empirical stuff - and nonempirical stuff. It's not something separate from things. Everything is the very body and fabric of Reality. The point is to be able to see the true nature of stuff, to see God in things. Things are God.


.

This is really quite fascinating. It seems like you keep reinventing the wheel, Kelly, and that is truly fascinating. I really do enjoy reading what you post here. Do you have any hobbies? Thinking about thinking is useful in the real world - but usually only at certain times. Normally one would be thinking about your "things" instead of about thinking itself, right? And that's another "thing" --- "things" are God. Why can you not just do away with that concept altogether? Why call anything (or Everything) "God'? Why not just say Totality? Don't gods suggest worship? Because if love means attachment, certainly worship must mean attachment "in spades." I think when you start philosophizing, you should pay attention to what words you use. Isn't the aim of worship to attach in one fell swoop to every thing (God)? If the attachment is successful, the fetters of the self are shattered and the self is temporarily lost as a water drop gets lost in the ocean. Is there a place for worship in your scheme of things?

Dennis, it's not about kindness. I'm just engaging in a discussion of some interest to me. I strongly discourage the kind of egotistical bonding or forming of any kind of teacher/student relationship. It's all about one's own relationship to truth, as an individual, completely alone on one's own path, focussed inwardly. Every person is alone here - others might provide something stimulating for the mind to talk with itself, but they cannot be feeding people fully formed answers - and so the task is to recognise one's own individuality and be completely alone with the sole thing of importance: a true and personally verified understanding. There really are not "others". They are just images in one's own mind.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are used to ordinary, deluded consciousness. So when they wake up, they are frightened by the sense of something new and life-changing. The ego sets up the Totality as Other - Big, Threatening, Overpowering. Or they perceive the need to congregate in groups, and factions, even the party of being an "individual" as opposed to a member of a group/cult, in order to find some security against that Big Other. That's where religion starts, and, as some would correctly perceive, the notion of submission to an external authority, with all that entails. Worship, and whatnot.

It should be obvious that all that stuff comes from a false understanding and a need to push further alone to improve and strengthen one's own thinking.


.


.

Kelly wrote:That's where religion starts, and, as some would correctly perceive, the notion of submission to an external authority, with all that entails. Worship, and whatnot.

You are not directly answering my question. But indirectly you have, so let me paraphrase: worship implies submission, which in your view is something to be avoided or is not productive or is counter-productive. Or is it merely unnecessary? Or maybe embarrassing?

Or they perceive the need to congregate in groups

But aren't you being dismissive about a point Jesus expressly made? Could these sheep actually be employing a method?

Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

If this is not to be taken literally, what is the esoteric (philosophical) meaning?

Nothing is intrinsically embarrassing. It all depends what one values.

I was trying to point you to a fundamental illogicism. Assuming that you also value being highly logical, and without error in one's thought, you'd perceive that I was talking about how the illogicality of believing oneself intrinsically separate to something else - here, the Totality - would lead to the mindstate of worship, and herd-mindedness.

If you want to argue that worshipful and/or herd-mindedness is "authorised by God", I won't stop you, but I would regard it as ingenuine and bloodyminded. Jesus also said:

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12: 51


On the other hand, if the text was similar in style to the Zen-like sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas, then the gathering of two or three is a saying like the following:

"When you make the two one, & when you make the inside like the outside & the outside like the inside, & the above like the below, & when you make the male & the female one & the same, so that the male be not male nor the female female; & when you fashion eyes in place of an eye & a hand in place of a hand, & a foot in place of a foot, & a likeness in place of a likeness; then you will enter the Kingdom." Thomas: 22

"I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, & two out of ten thousand, & they shall stand as a single one." Thomas: 23


...

Dennis, it's not about kindness

kindness means generosity in responding, you could have not responded.
guidance means directing to the truth.
clarity means clear, plain explanation.
thanks means it's appreciated.

The conversation has form and there are many possible forms a conversation can have.
form is giving ground to what is essentially groundless.

What you're saying is defining ground that Sagely inhabits, there's the drawing of a boundary that gives rise to Sageliness.

In my day to day deluded conciousness where I experience subject/object split..the I, the You and the them, that is the phenomenon that lives me.

In my cognitive space I have awakened to that delusion at least partly.

In my cognitive space I notice 'one expressing as many' and bring that recognition into the ordinary, everyday world as a possibility that in conversation it is God talking to God.

When I say what I say it is merely a form of politeness to honour the God to God possibility.

Nevertheless what you are describing gives me access to another possibility of form that looks like the wisest possible application of perfect understanding.

Obviously I'm a bit thick in the application.

You're not doing too badly compared to the Average Joe ;-)

Kelly wrote:If you want to argue that worshipful and/or herd-mindedness is "authorised by God",

No, quite the opposite. First of all, I am not equating Jesus with God. Second, I am mindful of your quote that shows Jesus was aware he would bring discord. But if you read it as I do, you will see that he was commenting on the low state of what he finds in this world, that his words would cause division because not everybody is capable of comprehending them, and that because they carry such import, they will not be ignored by humanity. The only other result possible is the discord that he mentions, but one gets the sense that he sees this state of affairs as a necessary stage as his teachings spread out like ripples on water. His ultimate intention is not the divided family your quote depicts. And lastly, I emphatically believe that Christ was not encouraging "herd-mindedness." Rather, that was what he wished to lead the world away from. By "two or three" he was acknowledging that his followers would be comparatively few, and at the same time urging them not to despair because of this, but attempt to gather nonetheless. Personally, I feel that much of his original teaching was lost as the gatherings "in his name" grew to establishment-sized proportions.

I think there is danger in viewing this very social upheaval Jesus predicted as his ultimate goal. It does not take a sage to sow discord. Charles Manson can quote the same passages.

cousinbasil wrote:I think there is danger in viewing this very social upheaval Jesus predicted as his ultimate goal.
It does not take a sage to sow discord. Charles Manson can quote the same passages.

Do you believe in magic?

Tomas wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:I think there is danger in viewing this very social upheaval Jesus predicted as his ultimate goal.
It does not take a sage to sow discord. Charles Manson can quote the same passages.

Do you believe in magic?

Only the in magic of the Tooth Fairy. And yourself?

Dennis, 'bout the subject/object, or I/Infinite split, Yung-chia Hsuan-chueh had this to say:

When we see truly, there is nothing at all.
There is no person; there is no Buddha.
Innumerable things of the universe
Are just bubbles on the sea.
Wise sages are all like flashes of lightning


— Extract from the Song of Enlightenment, on David's website. A better translation - less stilted and mouthy. Worth checking out.


...

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly wrote:If you want to argue that worshipful and/or herd-mindedness is "authorised by God",

No, quite the opposite. First of all, I am not equating Jesus with God. Second, I am mindful of your quote that shows Jesus was aware he would bring discord. But if you read it as I do, you will see that he was commenting on the low state of what he finds in this world, that his words would cause division because not everybody is capable of comprehending them, and that because they carry such import, they will not be ignored by humanity. The only other result possible is the discord that he mentions, but one gets the sense that he sees this state of affairs as a necessary stage as his teachings spread out like ripples on water. His ultimate intention is not the divided family your quote depicts.

Do you think Jesus was interested in love and marriage?

And lastly, I emphatically believe that Christ was not encouraging "herd-mindedness." Rather, that was what he wished to lead the world away from. By "two or three" he was acknowledging that his followers would be comparatively few, and at the same time urging them not to despair because of this, but attempt to gather nonetheless. Personally, I feel that much of his original teaching was lost as the gatherings "in his name" grew to establishment-sized proportions.

Well, if Jesus wanted people to form little groups of fellowshipping and worshipping him as a guru-like leader, someone to be admired from a distance, then I don't think he was wise. But if he was wise, he would have encouraged people to be as he was. Not to follow him. And he did say, allegedly, "Why do you call me good? God alone is good." So this indicates he didn't want people weaving their idyllic fantasies onto him, like "spiders of the cross".

I think there is danger in viewing this very social upheaval Jesus predicted as his ultimate goal. It does not take a sage to sow discord. Charles Manson can quote the same passages.

Charles Manson was very popular with his girls. Anarchists band together in angsty groups. Neo-Nazis hold assemblies. Hitler inspired thousands to heil him as leader. Group. Group. Group.....

I think the line "Where two or three are gathered in my name" is just one more excuse for a group. "For the children", "For Jesus", "For my neighbour", "For this excuse", "For that excuse", "For the sake of a good night's sleep" .... Group ad infernem.


.

Kelly wrote:I think the line "Where two or three are gathered in my name" is just one more excuse for a group. "For the children", "For Jesus", "For my neighbour", "For this excuse", "For that excuse", "For the sake of a good night's sleep" .... Group ad infernem.

It may be an excuse that some use to form groups that have nothing to do with Jesus' teachings (such as these "people"). Christ did say "in my name" and did not say "for the children" or "for your country" or "because you are the chosen people." He specifically named Peter the "rock" upon which he aimed to "build his church." In other words, Kelly, there are groups and there are groups. You would not equate the Nazis with the French Resistance, even though their methods might have been similar. We just got done agreeing that Christ announced he came to force people to choose sides, did we not? Surely a gathering with enlightened interests in common is not also an example of herd mentality?

I wouldn't assume everything starting with the words "Jesus said," were actually spoken by someone called Jesus, let alone that a wise person said them. Much of the Bible, the Quran, the Talmuds, or any religious text, isn't wise at all - or barely.

Second, the wise person is always alone, in the deepest sense. He gains nothing by being with others.

And even when communicating, he speaks to one person - the individual. The crowd does not exist. Anyone who tries to communicate to "the crowd" is addressing a fiction - a kind of statistical estimate of motley concepts jumbled-together in the hope that it reaches everyone. But such a jumble represents no one. It is a wayward self - an "I" running wild around the environment and not attached to the right owner.

It is like a charitable man with a bag of clothing, and when he finds some naked people, he gives one person a sleeve of t-shirt, and to another a pocket, while others get collars, or buttons, or hem tape. His needy friends remain effectively naked, because the idea he is given is functionally useless. It only dresses a small portion of his body, so he remains cold and unsatisfied. Every individual who tries to make himself receptive to that wild jumble of "the crowd" loses their own self, shrinks himself into an aspect of himself, and loses his true individuality.

The wise person is always alone, in the deepest sense. Wherever he goes, whoever he is with, he remains alone. He gains nothing with others or without them.


.

[quote=""Kelly"]I wouldn't assume everything starting with the words "Jesus said," were actually spoken by someone called Jesus, let alone that a wise person said them. Much of the Bible, the Quran, the Talmuds, or any religious text, isn't wise at all - or barely. [/quote]
Neither would I. But we weren't assuming "everything" about anything, were we? I usually accept as given that the historical figure of Jesus did actually exist, and since he left no writings of which anyone is aware, I have no choice but to quote those sources written contemporaneously about him. Since I do not speak Aramaic - his presumptive language - I rely on translations. I have read many. Certainly this "chain of evidence" leaves much to be desired, but we must proceed with what we have. And I will leave it to you to judge the "wisdom" of the various Scriptures, although how anyone or thing can be "barely" wise is beyond me.

And even when communicating, he speaks to one person - the individual. The crowd does not exist. Anyone who tries to communicate to "the crowd" is addressing a fiction - a kind of statistical estimate of motley concepts jumbled-together in the hope that it reaches everyone. But such a jumble represents no one. It is a wayward self - an "I" running wild around the environment and not attached to the right owner.

Aren't you doing just the thing you accuse Laird of doing? You are plainly altering the facts to suit your esoteric ("wise") position. Given my above disclaimer, I will stand by my position that Jesus did indeed have a public life and most expressly addressed people in numbers (i.e., the crowd does exist.) You then go on to explain what addressing a crowd is like. This may be your personal experience, yet not the experience of Christ when he addressed the multitudes, which is what we are talking about. I wouldn't "assume" the two to be the same, or even close.

Yet you are correct that he always speaks to one person, the one who has "ears to hear." His message is decidedly not political, for then he would have been the Messiah. Who is to say which among the listeners has ears to hear? Each one might; each one who does is that one person to whom he is speaking.

It is like a charitable man with a bag of clothing, and when he finds some naked people, he gives one person a sleeve of t-shirt, and to another a pocket, while others get collars, or buttons, or hem tape. His needy friends remain effectively naked, because the idea he is given is functionally useless. It only dresses a small portion of his body, so he remains cold and unsatisfied. Every individual who tries to make himself receptive to that wild jumble of "the crowd" loses their own self, shrinks himself into an aspect of himself, and loses his true individuality.

This sounds like a day in Bedlam. I am not clear about what you are trying to say.

Kelly, this has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It is just a simple fact that there are many people who can communicate to large groups effectively. I have seen it done many times, and often with difficult subject matter. To be sure, there are many more people who cannot. I myself am on the cusp - it depends on the material and the size of the crowd, but I would readily concede it not to be my forte.

The wise person is always alone, in the deepest sense.

So are we all.

Wherever he goes, whoever he is with, he remains alone. He gains nothing with others or without them.

Then I certainly must not be a wise person, for I gain things all the time, with others and without them.

cousinbasil wrote:for I gain things all the time, with others and without them.

Actually you don't, it just seems that way (now, but perhaps not for much longer)