GENIUS FORUMS

What is surprise for you?

In the 'Do you think you are smart?' topic i wrote that i think we are all dumb because i'm unsurprised by my perceptions; leads to am i in a closed circuit or are my surroundings too dull or am i a good improbability/probability generator or somthing? I think it's a mix of things, but i'm not sure how they fit together and want to hear peoples' experiences.

Wanting to be surprised, when taken to its cause, was for me, my way out of wanting to be surprised.

Realizing that the nature of sentient thinking is that of closed circuitry was my awakening, which was not the awakening I expected when I set out to "know myself." What I expected to find on my quest to know myself was an intellectual self of thought that would never cease to keep me surprised or in wonder. Safely tucked inside this ever enchanting intellectual realm of wonder and surprise, I believed I would never again experience boredom, psychological hunger or ennui. It took me a long time to wake up to the stupidity of such a quest. How does one spell trying to put fire out with fire? D-U-M-B.

However, as I said above, my dumbness was also my awakening. Not my awakening to smartness, which I discovered turns on the circle of dumbness, as does right turn on the circle of wrong, and birth turns on the circle of death, but rather, to wisdom, which breaks the imaged-turning circle of intellectualism and brings one face to face with its non-dual, non-circling source. I was surprised, yes, but it was not the surprise I expected.

Wisdom and "smartness" are two different species of the intelligence aspect of consciousness.

Are you talking about the Maya phenomenon?
Where 'people are dumb' refers to people being caught up in a semantic web of belief systems that enclose them in an explanation of ' how existence is'.
How people take for granted the cultural formulas of 'how existence is' and live inside that.
How people accept the authority of cultural leaders and fall into line with those dictates.

In that sense, does 'mental vagrant' mean a condition that is at variance to those cultural explanations of how existence is?
Does 'mental vagrant' mean 'pierced the veil of appearances' to some extent and standing to one side in relation to people 'caught in appearances'?

While appearances are true, because they exist, they are not truth ultimately?

In that sense does 'mental vagrant' suggest 'cogniser class A'?

Isn't that surprising?

That one can have a foot in 2 truths.
one foot in conventional truth.
one foot in ultimate truth.
in the world and outside it?

Is that what constitutes 'smart'?

movingalways wrote:Wanting to be surprised, when taken to its cause, was for me, my way out of wanting to be surprised.

Realizing that the nature of sentient thinking is that of closed circuitry was my awakening, which was not the awakening I expected when I set out to "know myself." What I expected to find on my quest to know myself was an intellectual self of thought that would never cease to keep me surprised or in wonder. Safely tucked inside this ever enchanting intellectual realm of wonder and surprise, I believed I would never again experience boredom, psychological hunger or ennui. It took me a long time to wake up to the stupidity of such a quest. How does one spell trying to put fire out with fire? D-U-M-B.

However, as I said above, my dumbness was also my awakening. Not my awakening to smartness, which I discovered turns on the circle of dumbness, as does right turn on the circle of wrong, and birth turns on the circle of death, but rather, to wisdom, which breaks the imaged-turning circle of intellectualism and brings one face to face with its non-dual, non-circling source. I was surprised, yes, but it was not the surprise I expected.

Wisdom and "smartness" are two different species of the intelligence aspect of consciousness.

Incise, we share this view. I think intelligence is one component of wisdom potential. Spirituality seathes wisdom.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Are you talking about the Maya phenomenon?
Where 'people are dumb' refers to people being caught up in a semantic web of belief systems that enclose them in an explanation of ' how existence is'.
How people take for granted the cultural formulas of 'how existence is' and live inside that.
How people accept the authority of cultural leaders and fall into line with those dictates.

No (Yes and No): Yes. But, still no. Cultural leaders? I see them as artists. If you are referring to politcal followers, let's establish my view, they are soo low worth mentally i don't consider them humans. Aphorism for me.

Dennis Mahar wrote: In that sense, does 'mental vagrant' mean a condition that is at variance to those cultural explanations of how existence is?
Does 'mental vagrant' mean 'pierced the veil of appearances' to some extent and standing to one side in relation to people 'caught in appearances'?

While appearances are true, because they exist, they are not truth ultimately?

In that sense does 'mental vagrant' suggest 'cogniser class A'?

Isn't that surprising?

That one can have a foot in 2 truths.
one foot in conventional truth.
one foot in ultimate truth.
in the world and outside it?

Is that what constitutes 'smart'?

You are more or less correct. I'm a mental ghost that seeks to learn, 'myself' has only ever hurt me, i want to die both partly and literally.

Please show me the ultimate part.

Please show me the ultimate part.

One cannot point to one thing without pointing at everything.

look at a guy holding an apple.
conventionally, the guy and the apple appear as distinct things separate from each other.

look deeper.

ultimately, neither are self-established.
both are produced out of causes/conditions.
both depend for their existence.
neither are autonomous.

Those who assert dependant phenomena,
As like moons in water,
As not real and not unreal,
Are not tricked by views.

Nagarjuna

non-duality.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Please show me the ultimate part.

One cannot point to one thing without pointing at everything.

look at a guy holding an apple.
conventionally, the guy and the apple appear as distinct things separate from each other.

look deeper.

ultimately, neither are self-established.
both are produced out of causes/conditions.
both depend for their existence.
neither are autonomous.

Those who assert dependant phenomena,
As like moons in water,
As not real and not unreal,
Are not tricked by views.

Nagarjuna

non-duality.

You KEEP coming back to this. I agree.

You KEEP coming back to this. I agree.

Because you are genetically equipped to 'get it',
how could you not agree?
It's clear and obvious.

sadly for us, Poets are higher up the food chain apparently.

For clarity, i agree with relativistic principalities, though, don't believe i can be right about anything. Further more cannot prove anything via thought experiments.