GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned.

clyde

How so?

If you are thinking about my acceptance of logic, it should be realized that it is impossible for anyone to reject logic as it underpins every coherent thought we have.

We can certainly block out conclusions that are pointed to by the logical process (due to attachments and learned views that one hasn't yet dismantled), but we can't abandon the logical process itself, not without abandoning our minds in the process.

There is no other means to challenge and dismantle everything that has been learned other than by making use of the logical process. Aside from raw perception, it is the only thing inside our minds which is unbiased and belief-free.

-

41. Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

Bodhidharma sits facing the wall. His future successor stands in the snow and presents his severed arm to Bodhidharma. He cries: "My mind is not pacified. Master, pacify my mind."

Bodhidharma says: "If you bring me that mind, I will pacify it for you."

The successor says: "When I search my mind I cannot hold it."

Bodhidharma says: "Then your mind is pacified already."

-- from The Gateless Gate ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/glg/glg41.htm )

David Quinn wrote:We can certainly block out conclusions that are pointed to by the logical process (due to attachments and learned views that one hasn't yet dismantled), but we can't abandon the logical process itself, not without abandoning our minds in the process.

There is no other means to challenge and dismantle everything that has been learned other than by making use of the logical process. Aside from raw perception, it is the only thing inside our minds which is unbiased and belief-free.

The normal logical, rationalizing process is definitely not belief-free. The point, though, isn't to be belief-free but to be based or founded on something other than belief. Belief underrides our entire perception, so there is no point in trying to be belief-free unless you are trying to die--that is, leave earth. The rational mind has to have some basic assumptions in order to operate at all, but the "higher," more basic mind needs none. The rational mind is based on linearity, past and future, cause and effect, so it needs a given premise from which to start its process. This premise cannot be questioned ever--or even looked at--unless the more basic Mind is allowed to lead.

The allowance of this basic Mind by the rational mind is actually the entire purpose of the spiritual path. It involves seeing the benefits and practicality of the basic Mind and learning to trust it without doubt.

clyde wrote:

41. Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

Clyde, you really shouldn't bother with the quotes — especially if you aren't going to offer any discussion to go with them, since your interpretation of these quotes is often completely wrong. You would be better off just to do your own reasoning.

divine focus wrote:The normal logical . . . process is definitely not belief-free.

Normal to an illogical person? Or normal to a logical person?

In the case of an illogical person, I would not expect them to be able to think logically. So, for them, "normal" would be illogic.

By contrast, in the case of a logical person, I would expect them to think logically, and that would be normal for them.

It is a mistake to attribute logic to an illogical person. And in fact it is an error of logic to do so.

Beliefs and fantasies are not compatible companions of logic, and tend to take the place of logic. In extremely deluded people, such as Christian priests, logic is barely recognizable in them at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:

41. Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

Clyde, you really shouldn't bother with the quotes — especially if you aren't going to offer any discussion to go with them, since your interpretation of these quotes is often completely wrong. You would be better off just to do your own reasoning.

Since I didn't offer any interpretation (which may be a fair complaint), how is my interpretation wrong? And what is your interpretation?

clyde

clyde wrote:how is my interpretation wrong?

I have no idea what your interpretation is. I just know from experience that it's probably wrong, and that's why I say you should ditch the quotes.

Now that you've established that you have no idea what my interpretation is, but that you KNOW it is probably wrong,

Since your ideas are absolutely correct, what is your interpretation?

clyde wrote:what is your interpretation?

Where does the wind reside? That's what it means.

:-) That is 'dropping body and mind'.

Do no harm,
clyde


p.s: Since this isn't the game of "Jeapardy", your answer does not need to be in the form of a question :-)

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:The normal logical . . . process is definitely not belief-free.

Normal to an illogical person? Or normal to a logical person?

In the case of an illogical person, I would not expect them to be able to think logically. So, for them, "normal" would be illogic.

By contrast, in the case of a logical person, I would expect them to think logically, and that would be normal for them.

It is a mistake to attribute logic to an illogical person. And in fact it is an error of logic to do so.

Beliefs and fantasies are not compatible companions of logic, and tend to take the place of logic. In extremely deluded people, such as Christian priests, logic is barely recognizable in them at all.

As I am now speaking to an illogical person by my definition, specifying logical or illogical would serve little purpose. You wouldn't agree with my definition. Everyone sees themselves as completely logical. lol

Calling anyone else illogical is illogical, unless in jest. Then it is completely logical. But otherwise, you are illogically concluding that what you see is what they see, or that what you see is all that may be seen and the only way to see it. Logic dictates otherwise, as perception is based on belief. In other words, you perceive what you believe! Beliefs, of course, are not absolute--except to the "normal logical, rationalizing process" when it does not see that it is operating from belief (assumptions, premises, givens).

divine focus wrote:you perceive what you believe

Nevertheless, it is possible to believe that which is absolutely true. That is not to say that others should share the same belief, or that they should even be interested in doing so.

Any belief cannot be "true." There is no absolutely true belief, otherwise it would not be a belief. You cannot believe the absolute. The only reason you can perceive the absolute is because perception is a part of it. You really cannot not perceive it.

You only believe your beliefs to be absolutely true because you can't question your premises. Each belief is constructed "logically," one on top of the other, so as to bury that which was originally assumed. This is not a bad thing, really, because there is no point in questioning the premises. There are no premises beyond them from which to question! The point is realizing that the premises exist, and that they are not absolute.

divine focus wrote:Any belief cannot be "true." There is no absolutely true belief

A belief is "true" when it is in accord with reality.

For example, I believe that I am experiencing typing these words right now. My belief is "true" in the sense that it is not a deluded belief. It is absolutely correct.

Each belief is constructed "logically," one on top of the other, so as to bury that which was originally assumed.

That might be the case for your own personal beliefs, but you can't project that onto everyone else.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:Any belief cannot be "true." There is no absolutely true belief

A belief is "true" when it is in accord with reality.

For example, I believe that I am experiencing typing these words right now. My belief is "true" in the sense that it is not a deluded belief. It is absolutely correct.

You perceive your experience, and then you form an idea of it which you then believe. The idea or belief is not actually true, as it is removed from your perception. It has become a thought which you then judge to be right and therefore attach to it--it becomes absolute. Your perception is there before your thoughts about it. Your perception is now, while your thoughts are in some static space.

Each belief is constructed "logically," one on top of the other, so as to bury that which was originally assumed.

That might be the case for your own personal beliefs, but you can't project that onto everyone else.

This is how the rational mind operates, in general. If you are human, you have this mind. You do not see that there is such a thing as objectivity, but there is! It requires a transfer of the absolute from thoughts to feeling. Better said, it requires the recognition that absoluteness is a feeling, once provided by judgment and attachment and then provided by acceptance and allowance.