GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:

I mostly asked, and described, on account of your being a seeker of perfect Buddhahood. I am not a seeker of this, but have still found the quiet of the present a better place to dismantle the noisy sicknesses of the mind, and bring about the necessary deaths.

Of course it’s a "better place." But one is, actually, always in the present -- whether they know it or not. And the present, I think, is seldom literally quiet (it may be worthy to note here that I have a problem with poetic descriptions -- I do not think they do philosophy justice, personally; seems more of a method used to relate to others). The question then is solely about “quieting“ the mind and the consequent emotional and physiological effects its machinations have on the body: to do this would be “to see.”

Since one is always in the present, there is no particular place to be or thing to do to get there. Ideas such as focussing on the breath to calm oneself quiet the mind by way of the body. It is also possible to quiet the body by way of the mind. Essentially, the enlightened individual has perfect timing and, thus, a lack of effort in this regard.

Leyla writes:

But one is, actually, always in the present -- whether they know it or not.

Leyla, just how utterly deluded do you think I am?! Of course.

L: Since one is always in the present, there is no particular place to be or thing to do to get there.

It is a matter of how attentive one is to this. How many private bugs are smeared on your windscreen and blocking your view; what kind of filters we are holding onto that colors all that we see.

L: The question then is solely about “quieting“ the mind and the consequent emotional and physiological effects its machinations have on the body: to do this would be “to see.”

.

No it is not solely about this, but it seems you have at least read a little deeper into this thread.

I seem to remember a very different Leyla the last time I looked in. This current Leyla repeats her lessons from here very well, and that's how it sounds, grafted from the outside, even with your inside understanding of them. Don't get me wrong, you can keep grafting and the graft might even take. But it will require endless maintenance and one day might suddenly fall off!

Sapius writes:

How did you come to see that all is the present if not through reasoning?

Through experiencing it. Yes, indeed, reasoning is also a human experience, so I'm catching it there. Perhaps ask Kevin about the flash - the flash itself. I doubt it contained a torrent of reasoning words and concepts, even if it came after a torrent of conceptual thinking and reasoning, even years of it. The problem I have with this sort of work is that it continues to require this sort of work to maintain it, even after purported satori. The larger problem is self-evident if there are still these little justifying filters in place. (I'm switching to "filters" since "sicknesses, obsessions, tape-loops, and justifications" no one has touched with a ten-foot pole).

In front of my face are no words, Sapius, no concepts. I promise you.

Sapius writes:

Well, one’s own what? Is there an own other than the mind that can actually see? Is own and the mind two different things? Is it this own that that will actually see the nature of THE mind from an “outside” perspective? That is to say that something, which is actually the own, sees the working of one’s (own) mind

Of course these are good questions, all in a tone of their own that understands the conceptual gaming.

If it is THIS complicated, Sapius -- this insane an endeavor to locate what it is one means by "your own mind," well, I am no good player of these sorts of bead games, either. Not you, but this sort of conceptual twisting about and agonizing forth is on the cutting edge of insanity to me, close to, though not as bad, as the academics.

It's very, very simple. Which is, of course, why it is so very very hard . . . .

And I wonder if anyone at all here can see this . . . . come out come out, wherever you are!

Oh wait, no. I am now with 62 student essays to read and respond. You could come out, but then I'll be gone . . . .

(edit for an additional comment)

Well, fuck. I must say, I love a feisty woman! However…

L: But one is, actually, always in the present -- whether they know it or not.

P: Leyla, just how utterly deluded do you think I am?! Of course.

Actually, I thought you were doing reasonably well. But if you wish to assume that everything I say is directly and only for your benefit rather than being an expression of my thoughts inspired by the dialogue, go ahead -- you narcissistic thing, you.

P: It is a matter of how attentive one is to this. How many private bugs are smeared on your windscreen and blocking your view; what kind of filters we are holding onto that colors all that we see.

I seem to remember a very different Leyla the last time I looked in. This current Leyla repeats her lessons from here very well, and that's how it sounds, grafted from the outside, even with your inside understanding of them. Don't get me wrong, you can keep grafting and the graft might even take. But it will require endless maintenance and one day might suddenly fall off!

I assure you, Pye, I am still the very same Leyla.

What’s the difference between the sound of another’s lesson-grafting and one’s own private bugs hitting the windshield? (An interesting filter, no?)

Ahh . . . there she is! :) and touche; you earned it.

What’s the difference between the sound of another’s lesson-grafting and one’s own private bugs hitting the windshield?

"another's" and "one's own," I'd say.

So Leyla, have you given up fighting for emotions here? Just curious. I thought you often made some good points about them as teachers. And like all good teachers, we have to not always remain students of them, to be sure.

Pye,

In the interest of clarity, I would state that the only "type" of meditation I have ever understood as meditation is that work of dismantling the mind's sicknesses as described in this oldest extant description of the Buddha's experience. So in the framework of Buddhism, it is the only "convention" I know.

But that's alright; we can use your words. I have also rejected what you call "conventional" meditation, and I have stated with plain language and simple implication (again and again) that it is not about 1. breathing/the breath 2. zoning out 3. getting a buzz on 4. reaching altered states 5. peacing-out 6. transcendental this and that 7. escape of any kind.

In turn, I have stated in plain language that it is about the work of coming to know the nature of one's own mind -- its sicknesses and tape-loops and obsessions and justifications; and its conceptual entanglements that base themselves upon these. Not by category or received acceptance that this is happening, but by the actual seeing of one's own. I have not described this work as relaxing or peaceful in any way, even if keeping to your even-breathing will help calm and concentrate you as you see, get sick of, and eventually uproot these things that stand before one's sight, preventing them from seeing what is right in front of their faces (reality).

You're really talking about a lower-order endeavour here, although it does have implications for the larger task of becoming enlightened.

Do you remember the story of Hui Neng? He was an illiterate fellow back in 7th century China who was recognized to be enlightened by his teacher after he submitted a high-quality stanza, one that was far superior to the leading monk's stanza.

The leading monk's stanza was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

What you describe as "meditation", Pye, is very much aligned to the first stanza. The task of uprooting "sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications" from the mind, while important on some levels, is ultimately a distraction because it is generated from the delusion that things inherently exist and that there is a pure and pristine reality that we need to see. Genius Forum, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with what is being expressed in the second stanza.

Of course, the issue isn't quite as black-and-white as this. Sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications can, and often do, have a huge impact on a person's ability to attain enlightenment. At root, these blemishes are a product of our emotional attachments, and emotional attachments (to anything other than Truth) serve as the biggest stumbling block to enlightenment.

Some attachments are far more significant than others, however. For example, eliminating attachment to all viewpoints, beliefs, and values (other than the valuing of Truth) is absolutely vital as far as trying to become enlightened is concerned - as is giving up attachment to praise, worldly honour, respect, status, wealth, comfort, love, etc. Genius Forum deals with these issues all the time.

Not so critical, however, is the attachment to, say, humour, writing, taking showers, bungie-jumping, smoking, being rude to people, imagining that one is more advanced than one really is, attacking falsehoods in society, listening to Irish music, cycling, drinking tea, etc. While these sorts of attachments need to be addressed in the long-run if one is seeking perfection, they are incidental to the short-term task of becoming enlightened about the nature of Reality - unless, of course, they dominate the mind too much and suffocate its philosophical aspirations.

In other words, one can become enlightened and still have "sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications" of the mind - albeit in the more peripheral, less philosophically-critical areas of the mind. As for the major sicknesses, these are overcome by abandoning attachment to all beliefs and views, and developing the mental freedom to perfect one's intellectual understanding of Reality.

As for the philosophy and the work of reasoning, I am up to my ears in it everyday! But where I see reality, is right in front of my face, and not in these rare and handsomely decorated rooms of reason in my mind. Goodness knows, though, how often I enjoy sitting in them :)

That's not what I would call a sensible or wise use of reasoning. Reason can be used either as a hammer to construct pleasant, artificial abodes (which is the province of academia), or as an axe to tear down all artificial abodes (which is true philosophy).

Sapius: How did you come to see that all is the present if not through reasoning?

Through experiencing it. Yes, indeed, reasoning is also a human experience, so I'm catching it there. Perhaps ask Kevin about the flash - the flash itself. I doubt it contained a torrent of reasoning words and concepts, even if it came after a torrent of conceptual thinking and reasoning, even years of it. The problem I have with this sort of work is that it continues to require this sort of work to maintain it, even after purported satori.

It doesn't, not really. Once a person understands the nature of Reality, he cannot forget it again. For he has unlocked the core delusion of life and no longer makes the mistake of seeking Reality in a particular form. In effect, he sees that there is fundamentally nothing to maintain.

Sapius: Is there an own other than the mind that can actually see? Is own and the mind two different things? Is it this own that that will actually see the nature of THE mind from an “outside” perspective? That is to say that something, which is actually the own, sees the working of one’s (own) mind

Pye: Of course these are good questions, all in a tone of their own that understands the conceptual gaming.

If it is THIS complicated, Sapius -- this insane an endeavor to locate what it is one means by "your own mind," well, I am no good player of these sorts of bead games, either. Not you, but this sort of conceptual twisting about and agonizing forth is on the cutting edge of insanity to me, close to, though not as bad, as the academics.

It's very, very simple. Which is, of course, why it is so very very hard . . . .

And I wonder if anyone at all here can see this . . . . come out come out, wherever you are!

Well, the issue is really a non-issue, because it is based on the false idea that the mind has a true nature which the enlightened person can "see". Once you get swept up by that delusion, the problem of how one can use the mind to see the mind becomes intractible. In reality, however, neither the mind, nor anything else in the Universe, nor even the Universe itself, has a true nature and so the entire issue has no basis. There is ultimately nothing to see.


-

Pye wrote:One would surmise that the need for constant concentration on the Truth is no longer necessary after satori

It happens more effortlessly. "Concentration", as opposed to "dissipation", happens without effort when there is little or nothing to dissipate the mind.

Satori gets rid of most everything that might dissipate the mind.

P: But where I see reality, is right in front of my face
K: That's what A=A means, ultimately.

Then I prefer this definition of yours for A=A (removed as an expression of individual thinghood).

Thinghood cannot be avoided. The enlightened person sees the countless individual things as they really are.

Pye,

So Leyla, have you given up fighting for emotions here?

Well, I still hold that there is value in the view of, and have come across no good reason to abandon, a distinction between emotion and misemotion. The topic hasn't really reared its head recently, though. But, David did give us a relatively stark example of it in his dealings with NickOtani.

Since we're discussing a related topic I'm curious if any of you have thoughts about the following issue.

First a quote from David Quinn's post:

Sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications can, and often do, have a huge impact on a person's ability to attain enlightenment. At root, these blemishes are a product of our emotional attachments, and emotional attachments (to anything other than Truth) serve as the biggest stumbling block to enlightenment.

How do some of the other (hatha, bhakti) yoga elements tie into this? So far the topic was concentration and breath but other forms use purification of the body/mind complex by a serious change in diet, doing devotional and selfless work, or of course the 'gymnastic' variants.

Does any of these have any use in this day and age in certain situations, as preparation? As a sidenote I noticed a spontanious change in diet over the years myself while being on the philosophical path, and I found out later it was in part similar to some of the yogic recommendations. Is this coincedental or not?

Pye, I really don’t know what to say.

In front of my face are no words, Sapius, no concepts. I promise you.

I believe you, for the simple reason that what you are talking about is simple awareness. Even this can be seen as a “conceptual” one from the Natures point of view, meaning, not an intellectual one, but that there is no real division although temporarily created by nature, empty like concepts, not even if you are aware of it at as such. Even if you are not thinking, the natural separateness of things makes them “aware” of each other. I’m not saying an intellectual awareness. And this awareness is apparent since every thing down to that minutest quark or whatever, is not still, everything is reacting according to its environment and its own nature. They would need to be “aware” to react. This may be too poetic, so lets just leave it here.

For example, awareness of animals is the best example one can equate closest to what simple human awareness would be. I know you can say that that is not the same, but something else. Of course, then I can say nothing. But when you say this…..

Through experiencing it. Yes, indeed, reasoning is also a human experience, so I'm catching it there.

I understand and agree absolutely. Basically what you have described here is a human.

Now what makes this pure sensual experience (awareness), devoid of intelligence, more natural and closer to Nature than actually logically deciphering and understanding this pure sensual experience, now that it is the very same Nature that provides you with such intelligence? Is this intelligence not natural? How can going back to what nature has pulled us out of help?

Aren’t we all animals to the core? But, it is only us who can actually think and say this.

S: Well, one’s own what? Is there an own other than the mind that can actually see? Is own and the mind two different things? Is it this own that that will actually see the nature of THE mind from an “outside” perspective? That is to say that something, which is actually the own, sees the working of one’s (own) mind

P: Of course these are good questions, all in a tone of their own that understands the conceptual gaming.

I am sorry that you see these questions as some sort of verbal trickery, but actually the answers lie within those questions.

If it is THIS complicated, Sapius -- this insane an endeavor to locate what it is one means by "your own mind,"

All I’m saying is, I can say my clothes, my hand, my car, my whatever, except my mind, because that would be an irrational thought. Isn’t it the mind itself saying “my” mind? From which mind does it say “my” mind? Or is there any other faculty operating? Pure awareness on its own would say nothing if it was not for the mind and intelligence which says so. If it was not for intelligence, we could not even be able to intellectually define or even know such a thing. Isn't it?

What is “mind” any ways? Just a complex enough process able to create mental verbal thoughts. This process can point towards its body and say “my” - “mind”, but in doing that, it is simply pointing to a complex enough biological entity, which has no thought of its own, but this process also logically knows that without this entity this process is not possible. Believe me, if I point to myself and say that, I feel absolutely strange. I consider that an irrational thought because this process sees that it has a body, and speaks from that perspective, not realizing that the body is just an extension of its whole being, and so is all that it is experiencing.

Diebert,

How do some of the other (hatha, bhakti) yoga elements tie into this? So far the topic was concentration and breath but other forms use purification of the body/mind complex by a serious change in diet, doing devotional and selfless work, or of course the 'gymnastic' variants.

If that really did work, we would have had many enlightened people around considering that it is relatively within reach and many are already into it, and have been in it if not for thousands, then hundreds of years.

As a sidenote I noticed a spontanious change in diet over the years myself while being on the philosophical path, and I found out later it was in part similar to some of the yogic recommendations. Is this coincedental or not?

I don't know how similar your diet is to a yogi, so I wouldn't know about the coincidental part, but I can say this, that the probability of change in diet is quite high since it is the nature of this endower that would gradually make you less interested in variety. I mean what you eat wouldn't really matter, even if it were the same thing day in and day out, or anything at hand.

Sapius wrote:Diebert,

How do some of the other (hatha, bhakti) yoga elements tie into this? So far the topic was concentration and breath but other forms use purification of the body/mind complex by a serious change in diet, doing devotional and selfless work, or of course the 'gymnastic' variants.

If that really did work, we would have had many enlightened people around considering that it is relatively within reach and many are already into it, and have been in it if not for thousands, then hundreds of years.

Sapius, you seem to have misunderstood the intent of my question. Let me repeat some of the context:

David Quinn wrote:Sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications can, and often do, have a huge impact on a person's ability to attain enlightenment.

Diebert wrote:Does any of these [other yoga paths] have any use in this day and age in certain situations, as preparation?

I hope it's more clear now. Then you continue with

Sapius wrote:I can say this, that the probability of change in diet is quite high since it is the nature of this endower that would gradually make you less interested in variety.

Did you ever experience the effects of (types of) food on your thoughts, senses and clarity of mind? And logicaly, wouldn't it make sense considering the electro-chemical nature of the processes in our neural system?

For the sake of (my) time, David, I enter into brief narrative mode on this visit and spare the quote mechanics -- first, to remark on the thought and care in your post, and to take note of these our ideas beginning to move in the greater vicinity. The mirror needs cleaned; ultimately the mirror does not exit so no cleaning necessary: to see the nature in things without them having any nature: to experience it all from a hub of experience that has no real and actual grounding, and back and forth, for which we know is all and also of the totality. You've taken note of the problematic approach of meditation alone; and I have taken note of the same issue with reasoning. I meant those handsomely decorated rooms of reasoning in betlittlement: the academies of Plato - the citadels of Kant - the universities of Sartre - and the neighborhood bars where our sicknesses, etc. hang out. There, too, reason is working (and of course we mean not-working) in slothful or cunning ways, but any enjoyment I experience in hanging out in these rooms is simply how well I can see how they are arranged now. Clearly I leave enough reason here to show to what use I am putting it. Candidly -- and hang on -- I think philosophy what can stand to be bitch-slapped now and again to remind us for whom the love ultimately works and succors.

It's good you state your exceptions to certain buddhist ideas when your expressed goal is perfect Buddhahood. It is good you describe a vast landscape between enlightenment and Buddhahood, so that I can understand you when you find some sicknesses, etc. acceptable and expected in the enlightened. Yours is a selective thinking and this bothers me not. I look especially for a personhood's specificity, what in this totality and multiplicity they have extended and dissolved themselves into; both possessing and possessing nothing; but what would I be doing here if I did not look also for the brightest expression of this specificity, those sort of footstones across Heraclitian streams. How can we not know that the end of all this is in silence.

Kevin, we could play tennis with A=A -- moving as described above and then located in each contextual verity, as you do here, each time you see someone standing on the other side of the net, so to speak. (A is for each thing; A is for all things; A is for the mergence of conscience and reality, etc.) This is indeed teaching movement, as you see just ahead of the place people will land this concept; and as I see continually and repeatedly causing trouble every time it comes as as concept, and the innumerable and torturous verbal marathons I have seen it undergo, not here but everywhere it gets discussed.

But I think there is something past this Buddhahood, too, and would venture to say it would be meaningless to me cruising the cosmos with my understanding, in any fashion "above" or even "all-inclusive." I think there is something past all this in the return. No, I don't mean that poor, lonely Hindu "One" that made multiplicity for company and now its pieces suffer to roam backwards to it again. I mean the return to this -- this life, in the most fluid of ways, the one I live, around everyone and everything, and each thing that is done, done with realization, and each thing that is done-with, done-with for good. It is Pyehood I am ultimately after, to perfectly realize Pye -- this one hub of existence to which I am presently bound -- from which and through which all that is realized takes place. Even if I can take in the whole of totality, I cannot do this for everyone else and shall still and always find myself alone, no matter the size of the cosmos expanded inside. I am not in haste for my dissolution into it in life; death takes care of that. To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. Past that, I want to be here to witness and move in it. One will end in it later on.

Leyla, I'd like to come back soon and ask things to have you bring your idea emotion and mis-emotion forward. This first question would probably be how much relationship you are using between a mis-emotion and an "inappropriate" one.

Sapius, I hope to write more soon.

Yet, the next general question I would like to ask of all and sundry at the forum is to explain the absenceof the word "compassion" here. I am interested to know anyone's thoughts on it -- its definition; its use or non-use to you; its relationship to emotions, its value, etc.

Did you ever experience the effects of (types of) food on your thoughts, senses and clarity of mind? And logicaly, wouldn't it make sense considering the electro-chemical nature of the processes in our neural system?

Diebert, I have indeed and would like to speak about it sometime. Sorry for the brevity here. Truly, how could thought (energy) not be affected by the matter that feeds its continued existence? Being as we all know energy and matter are one . . . .

Pye wrote:I would like to ask of all and sundry at the forum is to explain the absenceof the word "compassion" here. I am interested to know anyone's thoughts on it -- its definition; its use or non-use to you; its relationship to emotions, its value, etc.

I'll just respond to this last bit for now.

The reason "compassion" isn't discussed much here is that, through common usage, the word has become associated with extreme delusion. That is to say, it has become associated with emotion, such as sympathy and pity. And it has become associated with the selfish desire to do good and earn merit points. The word has become closely associated with the extremely deluded behaviour of common Christians, Buddhists, and the New Age community.

To me, compassion should mean understanding, and following on from it, the action based on that understanding.

On this forum we speak a lot about understanding and action based on understanding, but we just don't call it "compassion".

Common "compassion" is all about feeling, rather than understanding and proper identification.

Diebert wrote:

Sapius, you seem to have misunderstood the intent of my question. Let me repeat some of the context:

Sorry about that Diebert, but it is still not quite clear to me what your intent is.

David: Sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications can, and often do, have a huge impact on a person's ability to attain enlightenment. At root, these blemishes are a product of our emotional attachments, and emotional attachments (to anything other than Truth) serve as the biggest stumbling block to enlightenment.

I take it that the emotional attachment David points to sprouts from the root belief that “I” inherently exists, hence the attachments. That he makes exception to Truth is another story, because that too eventually one lets go of. However, Obsessions, justifications, etc., a product of our emotional attachments, can be the biggest stumbling block to enlightenment, is what I understand from the above.

Does any of these [other yoga paths] have any use in this day and age in certain situations, as preparation?

Now what I understand is that you are asking whether other yogic paths, other than concentrating on the breath, especially change in diet, could help prepare one in such a way that it might help clear up those sicknesses, tape-loop, etc., That is, give more clarity of thought to approach enlightenment. Is that right?

Did you ever experience the effects of (types of) food on your thoughts, senses and clarity of mind?

I can say that if I have constipation, I won’t be able to concentrate on anything pretty much, so I would do something about it, including change of diet. Of course, obviously one can thing better with a healthier body, and you can adjust ones diet according to what works best for him. But I don’t see how a change of diet will necessarily have any impact on the quality of thinking and logic? That’s all.

So I say, if that were the case, then the yogic diet which has been practiced for thousand of years, should have helped hundreds of people to eventually attain enlightenment, since they should be able to think clearly through a very controlled diet. So where are they?

And logicaly, wouldn't it make sense considering the electro-chemical nature of the processes in our neural system?

May be, but I would say that any healthy diet for that particular body which keeps the electro-chemical process balanced should give normal functionality and power to think, not that it will effect the quality of though. I don’t know. Is there some scientific proof that the quality of though is a result of the kind of food you eat? The best course of action would be to analyze what food did all those people eat whom you think are enlightened (enlightenment is the aim, isn’t it?), and follow suit. I think the Buddha had a glass of milk before finally getting enlightened, may be that will work. However, I don’t see how any of that would help.

Others might agree with you, but personally I’m not convinced yet. In the mean while, I think I will go and have a juicy steak. :D

If I have still misunderstood your intent, please say it plainly.

I said this…

I can say this, that the probability of change in diet is quite high since it is the nature of this endower that would gradually make you less interested in variety.

Because from my own past experiences, I have seen that when one goes into a deep thinking mode, especially the philosophic kind, in solitude, one does not even remember to eat. When eventually hunger hits, say somewhere around sunrise since you have been at it for the past 18 hours, he eats whatever is at hand. This happens for years, say at lest twice a week, because in between one has to do something to arrange for physical survival. This very same person, who previous had had a 3 square meals a day, does not even operate according to day and night now, let alone has time to think what to eat. The pursuit is relentless. To the point of “madness”, Of course, judged so by others. What can I say?

Now tell me, how can such a person have time to sit around and prepare a well thought out menu and run around to prepare it? He dedicates every available time to thinking, that’s all. And in my personal opinion, this is the best exercise to sharpen the electro-chemical process, albeit, keep it functioning through whatever means you can to maintain physical health.

Diebert, whilst rereading your original post, I noticed….

So far the topic was concentration and breath but other forms use purification of the body/mind complex by a serious change in diet, doing devotional and selfless work, or of course the 'gymnastic' variants.

Is there any selfless work as such? What knid of work does one do that does not satisfy the self?

Pye wrote:

Even if I can take in the whole of totality, I cannot do this for everyone else and shall still and always find myself alone, no matter the size of the cosmos expanded inside. I am not in haste for my dissolution into it in life; death takes care of that. To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. Past that, I want to be here to witness and move in it. One will end in it later on.

Phew! I had to trudge through the mud, fight my way through the jungle, but finally I see a clearing up ahead.

* * *

Hi Pye,

What you have written above, shows me that you have no passion whatsoever for understanding the Infinite. Without passion, your words about Ultimate matters are equal to bits of fluff floating on the breeze.

“I want to be here to witness and move in it” – be honest, you haven’t any idea what you are talking about, do you?

“One will end in it later on” – What? This is something that the dullest of the dull can come up with.

I’ve watched you dance around, draped in your seven veils, dropping one and then the other until we get to this, “To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. Past that…” That’s it? You fluttered your arms and glided your legs suggestively; you wiggled your bottom and flung back your head – and what for - to finally expose an ordinary woman. I already know what they look like.

Do you understand what you have exposed? No, I don’t think so. Let me help you out here. You have admitted that Ultimate things really don’t interest you, because you have already commended your soul to hell. (Hell = ignorance)

* * *

This forum is a celebration of Life, not a death march.

* * *

Sue

Pye,

Leyla, I'd like to come back soon and ask things to have you bring your idea emotion and mis-emotion forward. This first question would probably be how much relationship you are using between a mis-emotion and an "inappropriate" one.

OK. Yes, I define misemotion as inappropriate emotion. On the level of human, it is inappropriate to respond to certain situations through certain emotions. Yet, we see this all the time. A woman who storms off in a fluster of resentment on being watched knitting, for example, would be deemed misemotional. You might venture to say that just looking is, in and of itself, a form of antagonism but I would disagree. So, what went on in her head? Obviously, in this woman’s mind, she clearly felt challenged; threatened in some way. Sue, in another thread, proposed that one should treat others as themselves. She further commented that had it been her I’d seen knitting on the train that day, I would have been greeted -- more than likely -- with a smile and a chat. Indeed, had I been watching myself knitting that day I, too, would have either smiled or paid absolutely no attention to myself watching at all. But this did not happen. So, even though I did treat her with the same respect and consideration I would treat myself, from this viewpoint there was a mis-/lack of judgement. And this misjudgement lies in the specific details of how each individual interprets those things they see around them through -- as you say -- their “filters.” Perhaps I reminded her of a Palestinian suicide bomber, or something.

Now, this is all very much on the level of animal. It is about reacting by identification based on a previous, obviously uncomfortable experience and very little differentiation between that and what is actually in front of one’s face. Certainly even less attention to one’s own activities, thoughts and ideas. Even if I had been frowning, how could she know for certain that I was frowning at her and not my own thoughts of an earlier event in the day, for example.

And here comes the self-analysis. I was amused. On what basis would I deem this an appropriate or inappropriate emotion? Unfortunately, it has been my experience that many humans are in fact no more than domesticated animals with one exception: the potential to be human. That is, possessed of the potential to reason. Of course, I cannot be sure of exactly what that potential is with each individual that I come across, but I can be sure of one thing: pandering to the animal instincts of a thing that potentially can reason is of much less benefit to that thing than not pandering to them. To that degree, then, my response was emotional rather than misemotional. If I am completely wrong about humans and there are, in fact, many that have no potential for reason, my response (amusement) would be entirely misemotional. In this case, I would not have paid any attention to her knitting at all in the first place. In other words, my response to that element of the environment would have been along the emotional lines of disinterest.

Sapius wrote: Now what I understand is that you are asking whether other yogic paths, other than concentrating on the breath, especially change in diet, could help prepare one in such a way that it might help clear up those sicknesses, tape-loop, etc., That is, give more clarity of thought to approach enlightenment. Is that right?

Well, nothing 'especially'. Any method to strengthen body or mind and/or loosen attachments to be able to do the major task at hand. But I was pointing to a couple of well described traditional activities and wondered what the opinions or experiences of others might be.

Of course, obviously one can thing better with a healthier body, and you can adjust ones diet according to what works best for him. But I don’t see how a change of diet will necessarily have any impact on the quality of thinking and logic?

There doesn't seem to be a real consensus out there what exactly a 'good' adjustment to a diet is, so I won't call it that obvious. For the quality of thinking, one aspect could be that eating is often closely related to desire, not just to hunger. Many fats and sugars are known to work the same way pleasure and drugs do. And the fact we don't experience the craving and desire for them consciously doesn't mean it's not there. The attachment they keep alive in us might be noticed only after a very long break. It's not that different from a social life, sexuality and so on.

So I say, if that were the case, then the yogic diet which has been practiced for thousand of years, should have helped hundreds of people to eventually attain enlightenment, since they should be able to think clearly through a very controlled diet. So where are they?

This seems like a false argument to me. Following the same logic one could say that reading wisdom from Buddha, Lao Tze or Kierkegaard has no point since the act alone doesn't bring one closer to enlightenment or Buddhahood in itself. One could read the whole day superman comics instead or watch some soaps. Still no one would recommend it. In the same way I think the environment one takes in might be just as relevant for development or at least to enhance potential.

And I was not yet suggesting some specific causal relationship between some practise and the philosophical path. I only asked if anyone thinks there could be any relation.

Is there some scientific proof that the quality of thought is a result of the kind of food you eat?

Of course certain ingredients effect ability of concentration, some ingredients energize, others stimulate the production of certain hormones and so on. You think the process of thinking floats above all this chemistry, that it's running full capacity or hardly at all?

Others might agree with you, but personally I’m not convinced yet.

There's not much I've said yet that's to agree with or to be convinced by. I only asked opinions or experiences on the subject matter so far and gave some clarifications of what I had in mind.

Because from my own past experiences, I have seen that when one goes into a deep thinking mode, especially the philosophic kind, in solitude, one does not even remember to eat. (...) And in my personal opinion, this is the best exercise to sharpen the electro-chemical process, albeit, keep it functioning through whatever means you can to maintain physical health.

Thanks, this is what I was asking for. I'm planning to comment later on it though it makes perfect sense to me. The question still remains though: is there more to it when going all the way to what is called 'Buddhahood' or perfection by some? Such goal might include a lot of subtle influences to discover and to overcome.

Is there any selfless work as such? What kind of work does one do that does not satisfy the self?

I think you should see that in terms of detachment by activity. Like 'hating' your family is needed to counter a strong attachment that can keep ones mind bound. If there's a strong attachment to for example personal wealth and glory, certain tasks with no reward can expose or weaken that because they specifically counter it.
A full-time sage would do the ultimate selfless work but that doesn't mean one cannot practise by choosing wisely an activity to hurt your attachment in the cases that pure understanding and will power alone is not strong enough to undermine it.

Pye wrote:Diebert, I have indeed and would like to speak about it sometime. Sorry for the brevity here. Truly, how could thought (energy) not be affected by the matter that feeds its continued existence? Being as we all know energy and matter are one . . . .

Looking forward to further thoughts about the subject. When you find the time, matter and energy...

Sue (since yours is the loudest), I think your post is far more transparent of what kind of "woman" you are, still sick with a "woman's" self-eating bile; perhaps even possessing an endless appetite for it. It will not be myself to cut through the samsaric fear and Eternal craving for you.

I've often wondered what Buddhism would look like from the pulpit, and wouldn't you know I'd find a bile-eating "woman" its first occupant!

Still, someday you might yet understand.

Thanks for the exegesis, Kevin. I didn't figure that even in its ("compassion") recasting, that it would have anything to do with people for you.

Leyla, do let me read yours of depth a few more times.

(Ta, Diebert. Back soon's I can.)

You might venture to say that just looking is, in and of itself, a form of antagonism but I would disagree.

In the sense that gazing is also a kind of appropriation, I can see myself saying this, yes. But in your original scenario, I took your gaze to be simply this knitting you hadn't seen done in a long time. When you made eye contact with this woman, did you "tell" her that with your face? I can imagine it being done, and very non-threateningly. But I can also imagine her not alert enough to read it.

When I read your story and saw the woman there, I thought her knitting was precisely the kind of thing a person would do in order not to interface with people at all. And then, damn, you did! Sure, I can see her response as "inappropriate." But then, I don't know what was in your face in that gaze.

Sue, in another thread, proposed that one should treat others as themselves.

I rather thought Sue's comment was more developed than a golden rule. More like the other person being you, in a sense.

Well, I get the general drift, Leyla, that you see mis-emotion as poor reasoning. But I don't get the idea that the other side of this for you is no emotion at all. It seems to be a matter of appropriateness, yes?

Diebert asks (knowingly)

You think the process of thinking floats above all this chemistry . . ?

And of course I will answer no. Just as you have pointed out in conversation with Sapius, no one thing will provide the magic bullet, but a number of things can provide a better target for it.

My experience with this comes about from a health situation I suffered around 10 years ago, which required surgery for the first time I had ever been cut into. There was no help from "western crisis medicine" for the post-operative recovery from the original condition but their drugs - and one I might add that I would have had to stay on for the rest of my life. I said no, picked up my broken pieces and went home to study both the healing arts of Chinese medicine (where the "medicine" is food), as well as some adpation to the general principles of ayurveda.

I will try to keep this to-the-point of your question, because there a great deal surrounding this that I could say. Let me start with what I think is on the negative side of diet/thinking, at least in the general american populace.

American diet is largely a fermented one, and as a result, it's estimated that around 80 million people here are suffering from yeast overgrowth. This is not restricted to females in the sense of those advertisements you might see on television (you might take note of their increasing ubiquity, though). Males are hosting abundant yeast, too. When one considers the amount of sugar, bread, cheese, alcohol and pickled items that are a part of the standard diet (and the staple of the fast-food industry), one can see how we becoming little ovens to host and proliferate yeast.

A certain amount of this yeast is always present in the human body; the overgrowth is the problem. I know people working in the alternative medicine field who are conducting serious research into the relationship between yeast overgrowth (in children and adults) and what they call attention deficit disorder. Well, who could concentrate with billions of the little buggers jumping around inside? Not to mention the ensuing fatigue from the effort of feeding and carrying these little nations.

The class of items I mentioned all ferment in the digestive system (or are already fermented). What compounds the problem is the other class of foods regularly eaten that are acidic (meat in particular). When we put anything acidic into our body, we immediate produce a soothing mucus to soften the burn. A continual state of mucus production ends up providing lots of housing for the yeast to live and proliferate. Further, most americans have bogged-down digestive systems, eating too much food per sitting; per day, thus slowing down digestion and housing waste material in us far longer than is necessary.

This is the condition in Chinese medicine known simply as "wet" (too much mucus). It is worth noting that yeast overgrowth is present in nearly every case of cancer and AIDS as well (Chinese medicine also calls these "wet"). The official name is "candidiasis" and these great patches of yeast have been found increasingly in examination and autopsy in all the major organs, including as far north as the brain. When it goes "systemic" (as opposed to only being present in the digestive system), it is very hard to eradicate and takes diet changes for life. I am sure I needn't connect the dots to the effect of this upon the brain, upon the capacity to concentrate.

I know its seems awkward to cite just this one thing, but there is so much depression, ADD, immuno-deficiency disorders and other things along these lines being suffered by americans not to pay attention to this one, even startlingly simple aspect; there is too much self-evidence for the style of american diet. A body with loads of yeast in it has a very busy, and subsequently fatigued immune system trying to fight it off. And it simply has to be felt on some level, this hosting of these bloating and busy critters in the body. Everything is jumpy; everything is jumping around. It is not conducive to concentration. And the jumpy culture we have assembled around this is surely contributory and indicative.

These general things might be a start on the conversation, Diebert. I hope it's the direction and specificity you are looking for. I think you've asked an important question that deserves looking into, even and especially for people looking to "enlighten" themselves. No, food alone won't do it (just as with meditation :) But clearly . . . . your question has a good sharp point on it.

By the way, "yoga," - loosely translated - means "yoke to God," rather like "joined-to" (but you probably knew).

Diebert,

Well, nothing 'especially'. Any method to strengthen body or mind and/or loosen attachments to be able to do the major task at hand.

All I’m saying is that ‘strengthening of the body and mind’ has no direct link to logically thinking of getting rid of ‘attachments’, or even thinking of them as such? Indirectly, yes, keeping health in mind that is. For example, how many people who actually go as deep as Pye has been on health, or even yourself, have actually taken on a philosophical path? Even otherwise, there may be millions presumably indulging in a “healthy” diet, but how many of them ever seriously think about there own existence? Philosophically speaking of course. What kind of diet do you think would lead one to start thinking about Reality in particular?

For the quality of thinking, one aspect could be that eating is often closely related to desire, not just to hunger.

Agreed, but, in my opinion, it does not necessarily lead one to a philosophical path per say, unless, you are restricting “quality of thought” to philosophical pursuits only. May be that is what’s confusing me. I assume that quality of thought does not necessarily mean the subject of the thought.

This seems like a false argument to me. Following the same logic one could say that reading wisdom from Buddha, Lao Tze or Kierkegaard has no point since the act alone doesn't bring one closer to enlightenment or Buddhahood in itself.

They are not the same category. And, if you consider these names to be connected to wisdom in any way, then how many pages have they written on what food led them to this wisdom? You have to be wise enough to start thinking about what is good for health, rather than eating something to become wise. May be, the next logical step would be to eat something in particular to become “wiser”, I don’t know.

And I was not yet suggesting some specific causal relationship between some practise and the philosophical path. I only asked if anyone thinks there could be any relation.

I understand, and I say that it has all the causal relations, not just a particular kind that will necessarily lead a thing to think about Reality.

Of course certain ingredients effect ability of concentration, some ingredients energize, others stimulate the production of certain hormones and so on.

Of course, but are you the only one who knows this? What about others who know this, follow suit accordingly, and do not necessarily think along the philosophical lines as you do? I don’t think there is a direct link to the kind of food I eat and what makes me interested in Lao Tze for example.

There's not much I've said yet that's to agree with or to be convinced by. I only asked opinions or experiences on the subject matter so far and gave some clarifications of what I had in mind.

I know, and I was not talking about you convincing me, but that I have not been convinced in general from my previous thoughts on the subject.

Thanks, this is what I was asking for. I'm planning to comment later on it though it makes perfect sense to me.

I thought it would be better to give a little background before I came to that, that’s all.

The question still remains though: is there more to it when going all the way to what is called 'Buddhahood' or perfection by some? Such goal might include a lot of subtle influences to discover and to overcome.

Well, that question is open to the floor.

I think you should see that in terms of detachment by activity. Like 'hating' your family is needed to counter a strong attachment that can keep ones mind bound. If there's a strong attachment to for example personal wealth and glory, certain tasks with no reward can expose or weaken that because they specifically counter it.

To say the least, I’m quite glad that you do work diligently towards “quality” thought, but essentially, one attachment is just replaced by another, unless you attack the core and understand it, then there remains no hate or love; you don't have to force yourself into that. I don't know if I'm saying that right.

A full-time sage would do the ultimate selfless work…

Now I don’t know what to say here? Or how to say it?

What is that ultimate self-less work, I would ask? In my opinion, “doing” or even “thinking”, is necessarily a self-centered act. Without a Self, is there anything at all possible?

but that doesn't mean one cannot practise by choosing wisely an activity to hurt your attachment in the cases that pure understanding and will power alone is not strong enough to undermine it.

I hope you have enough understanding and will power to choose wisely and practice an activity that will hurt your attachments in the cases that pure understanding and will power alone is not strong enough to undermine it.

Pye wrote:

Still, someday you might yet understand.

Thank you, I hope to very soon. To help me understand, could you please explain what you mean by -

“To want ultimately the truth is the finest, the very finest, for it is the measure of everything. Past that…”

Sue