CP,
S: It IS voluntary, a willful process of THAT particular causality created THING.
CP: Yes, I see what you mean, but this process is in the individual’s control because there is no individual to be in control.
Yes, you see what I mean, but not through and through.
There is necessarily an “individualâ€, (and is in control to a great degree through reasoning), otherwise, A=A (Recognition -> Differentiation -> Reaction) is not possible. Thinking otherwise is pure fantasy.
CP: His will is drawn to what it is drawn to based on his psychological maturity.
And what shapes HIS psychological maturity? Uncontrollable causal conditions, or does HIS reasoning play any part in it? Concepts are thrown about a penny for a pound, and all of those concepts could, and are, “causes†that one can logically analyze, and then accept OR reject, or see a different concept all together, which is actually building HIS psychological profile. The “will†of an individual thing does not drop down from the sky, it all happens HERE and NOW.
CP: And also his conditioning dictates what is (it) chooses. (or, what is chosen) For the most part choice is conflict.
What conditioning? Was your mentality magically “conditioned†to be what it is NOW? Or did YOUR
reasoning force you to reject what you reasoned NOT to be true? Although dependant on the principle of casue and effect. I am not denying the Ultimate Hold that causality has on each and every THING, and its OVER ALL connection, but that does not mean that Individual things do not exist at all; causality creates THEM, hence anything is aware of anything at all. How else could Awareness be possible otherwise?
And the “conflict†you talk about, is real, it does exist, isn’t it? Hence the choosing.
CP: But that is not to say that he is not without desire, but his desires are much more intelligent/simple/minimal.
Sure, but if you could only replace the word ‘desire’ with ‘will’ and look at it again; you shall see that it actually is one and the same thing.
S: No, there are no uncertainties.
CP: The future is uncertain.
In this, your thoughts have slid down to the ground floor so to speak.
“Future†is necessarily connected to foretelling, and in that there will necessarily be uncertainties because of OUR limitations as a THING, but isn’t “uncertainty†a part and parcel of Totality, Existence, Reality?
In that, you are actually
certain that foretelling will necessarily be uncertain, and there is nothing paradoxical about it.
On the other hand, I already learnt in the “kindergarten†that “Future†does not EXIST from the Existence point of view, and hence, foretelling, just like any other thing, necessarily exists in the NOW. The future has not happened other than it being a concept, and the past is but a memory, hence all that there is, is the NOW, that we are actually aware of, not any other “timeâ€, for Actually there is none.
S: Duality is all that there is
CP: Are you saying that all that which is worldly is of duality meaning that it exists, but that which is of genius has no existence, however paradoxically this state of non-existence is the true existence whereas the world of duality/world of suffering/world of self-deception is more of a dream existence where individuals are not yet self-realized or are not yet no-self realized, however you want to phrase it.
Could you please leave the “genius†part out. That doesn't make much sense to me.
There is no such thing as “worldly†and “non-worldly†(is that what you mean by “geniusâ€); we mistakenly divide it up conceptually. There cannot be a “state†of “non-existenceâ€, for it would be JUST that, Non-existent, hence there is no paradox at all; WE simply think it up as “paradoxâ€.
As long as a thing is a thing, which it cannot be otherwise or turn itself into a non-thing or any such “stateâ€, “sufferings†are here to say, and THAT fact has to be logically embraced, and thence the inherent meaning connected to “sufferingsâ€, hold no real meaning at all. The real Self-deception is thinking that Sufferings ARE indeed Sufferings, and that “I†the great can Actually remove them by attaining a certain “non-existent†STATE, or attain an Absolutely “non-delusional-stateâ€. How the fuk is he going to get rid of the “Iâ€, (A=A), which he also considers as some sort of an “illusory†thing with some vague “Reality†that is “TRULY underlying†CONSCIOUSNESS itself. One necessarily dwells in and of duality, not beyond IT. Nothing exists beyond duality - beyond A=A.
Simply Realizing the Truth of “sufferings†does not place one in some “paradoxical stateâ€, nor in some magical “non-existence-stateâ€; it is simply a change of PERSPECTIVE, where no paradoxes remain. There are no “paradoxes†that even arise to create a conflict; hence the Self simply follows with that which causally comes up. It does not THINK about anything else than it is supposed to be thinking about at any given moment of the NOW, which even encompasses the “concepts†of past and future, effortlessly flowing without any mental conflict.
CP: I remember reading that Jiddu Krishnamurti and Adous Huxley would walk together on hiking trails and K would simply wish to observe nature without labels/without the word, but Huxley had to be constantly labeling things and expressing his knowledge verbally, he wouldn’t stop thinking.
After one of their last walks together K said something like “That man’s mind is like a garbage can!â€
But don’t you see, although one could say that JK has no paradoxes as such, but yet he HAS to necessarily use “garbage†to express what he means by GARBAGE. Hence one is not transported to a different “world†once paradoxes disappear, just the perspective changes.
S: That does not mean that I become ONE with every THING that exists, just that I can mentally project MY conceptualization into all THINGS, and yet remain an “Iâ€, because that cannot be gotten rid of, because THAT is consciousness itself, the “Iâ€, which cannot exist without duality, hence duality is all that there IS, with all its attributes that makes it ALIVE.
CP: Are you saying no self is self and no self is illustrated/defined through various degrees of self?
No, not at all; please don’t confuse that which is already clear and simple. What the hell does “self is self and NO self†actually mean? That’s actually one of the garbage that JK would say is. I AM ME, and I AM, other THINGS are what they are, and they ARE. BUT essentially, through CONCEPTULIZATION, I can see that there is no BASIC or ESSENTIAL difference between any-THING at all, because “I†see A=A being the foundation of any and ALL THINGS, including “Iâ€, and that does not make ME or any-other-thing one and the same THING. Things remain exactly as they are, and perfect as ever.
