Knowledge

Normally in our day to day life today we seek knowledge. - We learn and we study. You are even reading this right now. - People are practically as if stuffing their head into a tube.

- It is very easy to ruin your mind with excessive study.

But my intention here is not about this extreme. (- Btw, - if you check the link do note it was written back in 2012)

Idiots would always think the more things you know the better. Which is of course true in a way. Idiots are not always wrong.

- But there is the question of what it does to your mind.


- One other thing: - Back in the 80’s I studied math. I didn’t much want to, but this is how it was. It took courage to leave the university. Though I knew it was a place of idiots before I got there. - Not all of them though, and not in every way, of course, - but anyway this is just by the way. - In math of course, - you prove stuff. - Step by step. This is the nature of what you do there.

- Calculation. Proving theorems too has the nature of calculation. - This is limited. This is a proof, or an evidence, - of the limitations of your mind, - or our mind. - The inability to see things as a whole.

Intuition today is put aside in mathematics. I mean obviously one has to use it, - but in a way it is in principle ignored.

- Looking at the ancient Greek, - their attitude was that what they called “axioms” were to connect their practice to reality. It is quite simple, - they can not start off nothing, - so they pick up some of what they could see as undeniable truths, - ones they could peacefully assure themselves are true and correct, - and questioned what could be then constructed subsequently.

- I think every child in primary school knows that. - Though not in such an explicit manner.


- It seems about a 100 years ago a group of mathematicians adopted a different attitude: -

The Greek’s adoption of axioms is based on intuition. - But they say “fuck intuition”. They don’t give a shit if axioms are true or not. - Their attitude is we just pick up whichever set of axioms and see what comes up. - Does it reflect reality? - Does it not reflect reality? - These are not mathematical questions in their view.

- I had some correspondence with a professor (emeritus) of math in an American university and she explicitly had expressed her opinion that math is not about exploring reality. This is the way things are seen today. - But my point (- here) is about the view in which intuition is considered a thing to be put aside. - Actual seeking to develop our mind would to a great extent take an opposite course: - We ought to aspire to be able to view things in an integral manner. - In Math, as long as you have a proof, (or a solution, or a calculation) it doesn’t matter at all whether you are able to see the entirety of the different steps - in your mind, - in one integral picture. - Of course one who does have such an ability might sometimes at least prove himself capable in fields noticed, - but the ability itself is never considered as one which has to be developed.

- Still this is not the subject. - But the point indicating the inferiority of our step by step manner of thinking is essential.

- We should always aspire to see the whole picture. Of course step by step thinking is practical, - but this might mean our [human] mind is not in the best state. I’m not saying we should abandon it. But as a matter of principle we would be more than considerably wrong if we imagine this is what we should look up for.

- What made me write this piece, or start writing it, - is - the thought of what would be the manner of thought of the reality itself. - In order to come to the best we can hope for we ought to let go. - it is quite the opposite of what we do in math, - or - quite clearly, - in intellectual study at all. - This manner of thinking ties our mind. This may be quite irrelevant to most people, - but if you relate to meditators, - or to those persevering in treading the path, - this is not a thing of no interest.

- In a way, it is just letting go, - learning how not to hold on to those bits of thinking we are accustomed to grasp like a monkey grasps a tree, - or like having our shirt being caught in the thorns of a bush or some other plant, - which is essential for getting our mind developed.

- It is these unclear and unclean graspings which interfere with the possibility of our mind’s eye seeing things otherwise. I am not saying I got to that. - But the situation does seem clear. - Being unable to see that pursuing immediate possible easy to reach details as a matter of course and continually unaware of the eye lying within you capable of a view independent of that, - hinders - quite clearly - the integral ability which might otherwise come to be and function, - however so slow, - within you - again. It is the contrast between an unclear vision and a clear one. - For the need existing all the time in everyday life for most people it is inevitably, practically, - impossible to follow what I say; - but as a matter of principle I believe the understanding standing at the root of this post, - has a significant meaning, - where we live in a society running the opposite direction. Completely blind - in general, - to such ideas, - and ever ready to mock at them with the full confidence of the herd of intellectuals herding in the dry deserts of shallowness of mind. - There is further this I wrote about three months ago. - It might add to what I said here. - There is the ability to see things undisturbed far beyond what we are accustomed to, - as it seems, - untroubled and relaxed, - with an actual minimum of an intended effort, - putting aside our so-common desire to assure and double-check things in our conscious mind, - and there is the degraded state we are presently in (- most of us that is) grasping as-if-by-hand wherever-we-can in-the-most-untidy-manner every bit of information or data, - [- thus] disabling our mind to come to its potential through natural functioning.

בסיעתא דשמיא.

[the] LGTB community today and earlier

It seems to me if it has not been for the AIDS, the current views of the LGTB “community” could not have come to be. I mean the manner of life of these people, - or just of the homosexuals – or “gays” if you like, - as it was before the appearance of this disease, - was quite clearly not the most convenient ground for making the popular claims that their different tendencies are just as good as the normal ones.

– I am no expert on the issue, - but it seems the fact that continuous relations among the same couple – as in the heterosexual society – was not really a common phenomenon among the aforementioned before the appearance of the plague, - is no secret and was not earlier too. It seems it was the AIDS which forced them to change their habits, and perhaps their culture too. The attitude toward sex seems to have been different – at least for a considerable number of those, - at the time the AIDS broke through, - than the exhibited normality apparently presented today as a matter of course. – That is to say quite obviously now it can much more easily be said that there is no fault with the way they live, or with what they are.

– I have referred to the general issue before twice on the blog, once on a blog post and once on a blog page. – The common view prevailing today is one of the harshest phenomena to come across.

Without referring to its severity, - it is just about picking up just what is untrue, - and flagging it as if it was a supreme ideal. I cannot think of anywhere else where the stupidity of humanity is more clearly brought about even in a similar manner. And this is while contemporary society in general is may be said to be quite remote from wisdom in the first place; - unlike what some typical intellectuals would say of course. – Anyway, still, - I brought here a particular point which has crossed my mind.

So far.

The Worst

Perhaps it would have been natural that I would have written this in a “Thoughts” post. - (See here too) But I don’t write these anymore.

- Regarding Donald Trump’s presidency, - today, on 15.1 2021, - the time I am writing this, - it seems the worst thing about the whole deal, or the whole issue, - is that even now people, - I mean many, - of course not all, - do not understand how bad the whole thing is.

- I mean I could not imagine him winning the elections next time, in 2024, - or even being a serious candidate then. - But the thing is, the issue, - that so many may still support him. I mean how blind can people be? This seems to be the phenomenon which may signify the worst toward the future.

- More than all that happened, I think. - If the minds of a significant percentage in America (I mean in the US) can be so disappointing, - so poor, so miserable, - the hope may be scant and the danger evident. No one has foreseen initially Trump would become president, or could become resident, - or even be a serious runner. It all seemed like just a joke at first. But Trump proved the system sucks. - Than again, - On January 6^th, - no one, basically, - figured out what could happen, - or what was going to happen. - Else than some things the FBI figured out, - but this was based on concrete communication among extremists who were communicating among themselves. - No one could tell off the surface. Including Nancy Peloci who seemed to later assume (among others) Trump was seeing things in advance. - So this should be applied ahead. Surprises are to be expected. Actual surprises. Not today. Not tomorrow. But with time in an unclear timing. - You can tell people anything. Some will believe some strangest things. - And it’s not about loving the alien. - It’s a bit like a monster slowly awakening in a horror film. - And things could get worse. If people now believe x, next they might believe y. It’s no unified belief, - of course. There would be different levels and different views. - Some worse than others. But this should be followed. Should be noticed. Should be monitored. Education is not easy since people might pick up whatever they like on the web. But the United States of America should be aware that a monster may be growing within its guts and care of it may not be easy anyway, - particularly if time is wasted and awareness is insufficient.

Common sense II

There is this post I have written some time ago. - I did not relate to the point then (there) but there is also a very significant point which - as it seems, - follows what is pointed out there.

(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)

- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.

- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- generally speaking practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?

- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.

(- Written - 8.1.2021 -)

Perfection

This is about a thought I had for some time and now (Feb 22 2019) I am bringing it as here. - It is quite a simple idea. Perfection is determined or defined according to our expectations. That which accords with our expectations we call perfect. The idea is rooted there. - The situation in which we find the existence of expectations natural, even without explicitly recognizing them or being able to see them for what they are or noticing them as an independent phenomenon, - is where the birth of the idea or notion of perfection takes place. - No expectations, - no perfection. So it seems.

- Expectations originate when we conceive what we would view as faults.

A faulted thing is imperfect.

- When we see one thing as better than another faults could be conceived. - If we have no view seeing A as better than B than there would not be a thing we would consider faulted.

- Why do we consider one thing as better than another? One situation as better than another? - Whichever the reason this is where it begins. - Then we could observe one running of things as better or worse than another route and then we might view one as faulted.

- And then we might consider a thing perfect or imperfect. We define it, - though not intentionally or consciously. - Truly, - as it seems, - as I said in the beginning, - it is our expectation which practically determine what would be called perfect and what would not. - If our view is freed of such “faults” than we would not see this difference of perfection and imperfection.

- So at the bottom line it seems it is just the issue of good and bad.

- Things apparently have a natural route to them. Sometime simpler, sometimes more complicated. - That which follows this route or is closer to it we call “good”. So it seems. - Why? Perhaps it has to do with the way we are made. - Why do you find one thing painful and another thing joyful? - It may be rooted there. However, - as it seems, - again, - our division into what we might call “perfect” and what we might call by a contrary word is based on our inner wrongness; - you might say the way is of zero width, - and when we view it as wider than that, - such phenomena occur. So far for that. I was wondering about whether this idea [of perfection] could be transcended, - or perhaps you might more accurately say dug under, - proven to be empty of [real] meaning, - and quite clearly I came to an answer; - though the root of good and bad is not yet necessarily equally clear.

             (- It seems I only wrote the first paragraph here on Feb 22^nd 2019 as said above, - the rest I completed on March 25^th 2021. (- and deleted a bit of other stuff I wrote earlier)

             - A PDF file is here.)

Thoughts II

     –     10.11.2020 – The computer seems to have become man’s best friend.

     –     11.11.2020 – One of the troubles of humanity in general and of materialistic individuals in particular is that when coming across severe mistakes of humanity in the past where existing norms [of the relevant past time] are such that would be understood today as ridiculous or almost unbelievably unreasonable – those individuals would imagine themselves altogether different than their old predecessors and fundamentally think they have come beyond such miserable attitudes rooted in baseless confidence devoid of wisdom – which they are fundamentally unable to recognize.

     –     (That is to say – if you take for example what the inquisition did – burning people alive and using severe torture as part of their interrogations, certain of their righteousness in quite an unbelievable way, - or interpretations of various religious stories in different parts of the world accepting them as valid facts where they might not necessarily be very distant from legends, - (while I am not saying other religious narratives may not be true reports, but one should be able to tell the difference) contemporary views and attitudes may be no less stupid)

     –     12.11.2020 – One of the most important things for people to understand is that contemporary science is selling them shit.

     –     (This may be much like the story the Buddha told about the blind men touching the elephant)

     –     About 15-20 ago I became unable to sit Zazen due to a bodily weakness. It seems there is nothing like it, - no substitute, - nothing similar for one who knows it. – Humans, - apparently, - in a way at least, - are very weak on the side of the will. They do everything through thought, - everyone are accustomed to that, - so practically no one sees it – generally, - as strange. – But as it seems fundamentally we might expect the situation would be quite different, - that abilities would not be so dependent upon thought. It might be quite more natural for the will to be able to directly act upon things, - but we have almost no such ability. Rather we always have to think how to use existing circumstances for which ever purpose we might need or want to achieve. It seems to be the consequence of some sort of deep sinking into the physical plain, - a degenerated situation where our being is severely incoherent and imperfect off being as-if soaked into where we live at present.

     –     The very idea that mental illness could be treated by mere chemicals is amazing.

14.11.2020 – It seems to me one is unable to understand spirituality without understanding Jesus’ words referring to religious leaders of his time as “blind managers” or generally understanding what was he talking about using these words. (– Off my memory: – “Let them be”, or “leave them alone”, - “blind managers they are, - will the blind lead the blind? – And they both fell into the pit.”)

     –     An old thought I had is that what characterizes the spirit is that business men (and women) are unable to take it over and use it for their own purposes. (As they do with practically almost anything else, - i.e.)

     –     16.11.2020 – The view of materialistics of religion may be quite correct, - religion has become degenerated, - this may even be close to an understatement. – Most (in western religion) may believe “God” exists simply because they have been told so, while the spirit of things may be to a great extent suitable or appropriate for a considerably earlier period when old scriptures have appeared.

     –     24-26.11.2020 – In the moment of the present there isn’t room even for the slightest thought. Usually (as it seems to me) people think – not necessarily consciously – of the moment of the present as something lasting something like two or three seconds. That is enough to raise at least a simple thought. It is not. Of course. – It has no length. – There is no time in it to think of anything. Do notice. – You can not think anything in there. It doesn’t seem anything one could imagine. It is different from what one might in most cases think or imagine when it comes to mind. (I actually thought of that quite earlier, [than the date here] but it came to my mind again and seemed to fit here)

     –     28.11.2020 – We imagine ourselves to be moving in time all the time. But actually, - as said before in various places I guess, - in the present moment, - we only remember the past and estimate the future. – We do not and can not [directly] see the past or future in the present moment or from the present moment. But this means we practically don’t know whether we are [actually] moving in time. – It may be that we are forever stuck in one “present moment” with the constant-illusion-of-this-notion-of-being-in-motion-through-“time” we are never – of course, - able to examine.

     –     The situation of religions today (not where there is a transmission independent of conceptual understanding) may much resemble the children’s game known as “broken phone” (“telefon shavur” in Hebrew) in Israel. (– Simply “telephone” in the US, “Chinese whispers” in the UK)

     –     30.11.2020 – It is quite obvious that a society which neglects education would pay the price, - but the practical situation may be that subsequently in the coming situation the norms would change in a way so that the fact of the damage done would not be detected by a considerable portion of the people there. This too is no secret but it makes the occurrence irreversible to an extent which is not negligible in itself. I mean it creates blindness the cure of is prevented by a taboo.

     –     Since the “I” by its very nature requires certain time for its construction, - that is is not ultimately direct, - the present moment is inaccessible to it.

     –     1.12.2020 – The place where religions degenerate is where people are unable to understand that occasionally things said are meant or intended to express what can not necessarily be expressed. (Among other things, - sometimes things are expressed in a manner intended to suit a certain stage of development of humanity and later when we have become more mature or more awake the old manner of expression is clung to ignoring the fact)

     –     As it seems to me, - the second story of creation in the Bible (Genesis 2:4-25 (plus the whole next chapter)) was never originally meant to be expressing an actual occurrence as described in it by whoever has presented it at first, - but the fact has been forgotten and lost.

     –     7.12.2020 – According to common materialistic views the existence of mind is unexplainable. – Whatever technical explanations one may present or think of they would never create a ground for reasoning the existence of mind. – Common materialistics take it for granted that matter (physical matter, practically) existed first and later, - subsequently, - mind appeared. Following such a view the situation is as said above. – Actually, - mind is prior to matter. Though in the physical world apparently matter appeared first. This is misleading and the cause of the mistake. – Joint by the confidence and the stupidity of the materialistics. – I have related to this in a post I had on about three years ago. – You might check things there if you are interested. Practically the situation may be said that mind was there first (– if you would say the reality is mind, some might say it is and some might say it is not, and both are correct) and matter have appeared only subsequently, - if you would see it as existing at all, - that is.

     –     14.12.2020 – Among those sitting in the court of law there seem to be quite a few whose god is the procedure.

     –     An excessive attempt to avoid mistakes could result in severely poor outcomes.

     –     22.12.2020 – Democracy is fundamentally a rough arithmetic mechanism. – Emotional people imagining themselves wise attribute all sorts of other things to it. All sorts of balances and safety measures may be important or valuable in themselves, - but it does take an idiot to be blind to the simple fact they are not part of what this system is. – Those emotional guys mentioned apparently see it as a must it has to be some lofty and elevated ideal, - their attitude is quite – or somewhat, - religious like. – Practically it is just a rough mechanism suitable for the-current-time-we-are-living-in which in no way could even come close to manifesting the highest possible virtues of man.

     –     23.12.2020 – The practical fact any number close to 50% of the American people voted for Donald Trump means there is a sickness there. – The ridiculous situation is just because the sickness is so deep you can not speak of it. If it was just 5% or 10% it might have been quite fine, - you could call things what they are, - but through the great number the phenomenon gains legitimacy and it’s not OK if you speak the truth of it. – There is a similar situation in France with Marine Le Pen gaining legitimacy though not winning elections, - but coming close is enough, quite reasonably. Even if it would be only 25% voting for Trump it would be rather the same, - as for the sickness I mean. – People should be aware that what they categorize as politically correct or not politically correct or as acceptable or appropriate could lead them eventually to where they wouldn’t want to get to, - because of their stupidity. They ought to awaken now and fight those who will claim such ideas should not be expressed.

     –     Had democracy prevailed in the Sinai desert in Biblical times it seems the people of Israel would have returned to Egypt rather than continued on their journey and arrive at the Promised Land.

     –     24.12.2020 – Regarding the path, - people usually would seek success. – It’s quite natural, - obviously. – And they may judge it by the measure by which they get it. Quite foolishly, - actually, in practice, many times. – It would make more sense to first come to know what aims should we seek, - which would be a right purpose, - meaningful. – The actual situation may be much different than the common views. – This is the place to start, fundamentally.

     –     – It is not that we should divide it all it this manner, - but this is the right way. One does not need more than common sense in order to tell. – First you [come to] figure out what is important, - what is right to do, what is right to seek, - than you can [perhaps] measure or estimate things accordingly, - not the other way around. It’s quite simple, - it makes sense, it doesn’t require spiritual understanding, - but obviously this isn’t the way most people go. Though it could be otherwise.

     –     I believe democracy has gone bankrupt on November 8^th 2016, - but fervent adherents will not see. – Partly because their attitude is emotional.

     –     25.12.2020 – Not so long ago, - 200 years ago, - was someone to claim that diseases we have and suffer from are caused by very small being we are unable to see (germs, bacteria) the reaction among most learned men and women would have been similar to the reaction today amongst such individuals to serious references to the occult.

     –     1.1.2021 – Wisdom is much abandoned these days because of seeking objectivity. – What one who has attained it is able to know or understand not necessarily others will be able to verify independently. – When it comes to “science”, - physics for example, - ideas are basically able to be examined in order to verify their reasonability. Same in [some] other fields. – But these merely depend on the intellect. – Wisdom is different. – You can’t test it through IQ exams. You are not necessarily able to convince those devoid of it of its validity. Today many might imagine this would be a reason to put it aside, - since they doubt its outcomes and practically perhaps its existence too. (Many intellectuals may be unable to understand what the difference between intelligence and wisdom is) So in practice it’s neglected and does not contribute to humanity and its progress. – Which means some further materialism as a result. Somewhat of a vicious circle that is, - too.

     –     There is a practical influence which means modern technology is causing people to be less mature.

     –     2.1.2021 – I have long thought that the worst issue with humanity was that people think society is capable of conducting itself.

           On 12.11.2020 it seems there were some thoughts I intended to write but are not there.
           It seems the first is missing. – Also where said “it seems there is nothing like it” it refers, - of course, - to Zazen.
           Having checked later, - the quote on Nov. 14 (2020) is from Matthew 15:14. (– The expression itself mentioned there appears in various places elsewhere too)
           On some places the texts have been changed later than the date they were at first written. – On 7.12.2020 I could not complete writing because I had no Internet connection and so could not see my earlier post linked there. – In some other places I also made changes but not altering the original idea. – Sometimes very slight, - correcting grammar mistakes or changing capital letters to small ones or vice versa. – Sometimes things look better here on the blog differently than on the “Word” file.

           This remark may be in general quite unnecessary but anyone interested could check the file here, though some changes have been made there too.
           (– If necessary to mention: – On December 23^rd 2020 “such ideas” means ideas saying you can’t call people like Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen and their supporters what they truly are.)
           Obviously after the January 6^th occurrences some things may look different. The thoughts relevant to this (perhaps) from 30.11.2020, (– first) 23.12.2020 (– first) and 24.12.2020 (– second) still seem as true as they were and anyway had no real changes. (I changed “PC” to “politically correct” and added an “a” somewhere where it was missing)
           There is also a post I wrote (after the incidence)  which should be on on May 31^st unless anything goes wrong.
           I completed this post (including these remarks here) on Jan 17. (2021)

Nihilism

Some may say nothing matters. Does the concept of “matter” actually exist? - Are there things which matter and things which do not?

 

- Wtf.

- Many would think if you accept the idea nothing matters, - it would mean reasonably one should not make any effort in any direction. - Roughly speaking, - just lay flat on your back. Some would point that just laying flat like this would lead to suffering, - and they would usually take it for granted that one would wish to avoid it, - so they might present this as a reason for diligence.

- The point here is different: - Why do many initially have in mind that if nothing matters it would mean we ought to give rise to laziness? - Why do they imagine it must mean, - or would mean, - we ought to do nothing, - try nothing, - or lay flat as I said? - The reason is quite obviously, - laziness is so inherent in them, - and this is definitely no rare thing, - that they subsequently have this view. - Actually, - I would say, quite clearly, - if nothing matters, - it would mean nothing either way! - This means you could lay flat on your back, - or make the utmost effort in any craziest manner, - or anything in between. But it clearly and explicitly does not mean the first is better than the second! 

 

- The mistake is very easy.

 

Almost everyone falls in it.

- There is not much to explain. The point is simple. - But so easily overlooked. - There is an inner false notion people are not aware of-the-real-nature-of, - just assuming reasonlessly they should actually satisfy laziness if no other contradicting cause is apparent.

 

- The root, I believe, - is harmony.

 

It does seem like the harmonious situation is the best situation.

 

- How could I say that if nothing matters? - I could not.

 

- But if you do want to see anything as a thing that matters, - harmony is of course no doubt better than laziness.

 

- And the notion for seeking what-is-actually-derived-by-laziness does seem to originate through its relationship with harmony. It seems like - somewhat, - a primitive way of seeking harmony. - However, - as for our point here, - I believe, - that if we are able to remove this false notion, or otherwise at least see through it, - somewhat at least, we could (hopefully) notice that nihilism does not mean abandoning any attempt to get anything, - practically.

 

- I could guess one could only understand the real meaning of nothing having any meaning - so to speak, - if one is enlightened. - Which is [of course] very rare. But otherwise too one can understand my words. [- here]

- So far.

 

- The reason spiritual teachers avoid (sometimes) the point of no meaning or no value is - I would say, - that the point referred to here is missed. Otherwise is ought to be possible to speak of it.

 

So far.

What Man is

 It has been said, some time ago, - that the difference between man, the human being, - and animals, - is his ability to create tools. (And use them)

- Later I believe this idea has been dropped.

- I think after chimpanzees have been observed making a simple tool.

- Now, I think, - it is thought man is different in his ability to think. I do say, - if a dog is able to find his way back home in a neighbourhood it knows this inevitably reflects thinking processes.

- So obviously thinking processes exist in other beings too.

- Therefore, - what is the difference? - Man is able to disconnect himself from a situation he is in. - Man is able to think not only as a natural process involved in the situation he is in at the moment but also to stop and have things run independently in his “mind” not in real time.

- To consider a situation not only while it’s running as an outcome of the stimulus coming through right then but to think of it in a way similar to watching a movie filmed earlier or seeing a view in a mirror. - To bring up things relating to the past or future as off the computer’s hard disc and relate to them then in a way similar to the way of thought in real time.

- This is the difference. Animals are unable to do that. They are slaves of the present moment.

So far.

the Aim

As I happened to send a link to this post to someone I came across some things he’s written about the four principles of Buddhism (known as “the four noble truths”) and subsequently I made this reference to another facet of the four world views as referred to here: -

On the materialistic plain one wishes to avoid unpleasant things, pain, suffering. - Perhaps seek happiness, but mainly, as it seems to me, - first, - to be free of the unenjoyable, - that is - I mean, - of what causes what he experiences as a negative experience - as said here first.

On the idealistic plain it is the attachment to a self image which determines the direction. - This would mean one seeks self improvement. The field in which one would seek this could vary a lot from person to person. - It could generally be any field, any sort of improvement, - any way of becoming better.

One may wish to become wiser, one would wish to become brave, some value moral virtue, - the point it is rooted in the wish to become better, to see yourself as better, - but I am not referring to self deceit, - but to the actual wish or attempt to make oneself better for the sake of making oneself better. If it is about gaining an ability for the purpose of getting some outcome, given that this outcome itself would be of the materialistic plain, - than this would be of the materialistic plain, and not of the idealistic.

- In the realistic plain things are different. - You might say there one seeks [to come as close as possible to] an ultimate “good”.

- What this would practically mean is extension of abilities. - Being more capable is “better” than having less abilities. Happiness, pleasance, - is nothing. - They have no value of themselves and so would count to nothing. - But it is not about one’s personal abilities, - rather it is about the abilities of all. - This would be the aim sought in the realistic plain. - While there is no reason why all possible routs of gaining any qualification should be considered equal: - Naturally some would be more valuable, - as in our everyday life. - But the most valuable ability would be the one leading us to understanding we have no reason to actually to prefer one thing to the other, - being capable to being incapable, - this would be the most refined one; - not seeking to become almighty, - though we might gain this too if we do come to this understanding.

The fourth phase Nishijima calls “the ineffable” or “reality”. It is essentially different from the other three. - We can not speak of what one wishes or seeks or aims for in the same way we did so far.

- Here I would say action is not different from no action. - All is an integral whole. - So we could not speak of this wish (we have discerned for the other three phases) one has. All action is completely natural, - there is no separate motive or intention or inducement separate from the action itself. The aim, if any, is so inherent it doesn’t exist. - There isn’t any mind either. - So, I mean, - there isn’t any place to accommodate the wish or aim. But this is not the primary point, - the primary point is in my view here that all is one, there is no separation between mind and matter or perceived objects, - there is no separation between perception and consideration (or thought) and action (or will) and the “external” results left as objective facts in the world which could [then] be perceived again, there is no separation between inside and outside. - So there is no aim which could be isolated or even traced, - there is only one way, if any, one route, - one line, - so to speak, - perhaps extremely complex, perhaps simple, - along which everything goes. Or not. But there is no need for a motive. Nothing is exhausting, harmony is maintained, - the universe is a perpetuum mobile.

Written on May 4^th 2020.

(- Plus a few minutes, - as it seems, - into the next day (- May 5^th that is))

Questions

I wrote the following after having a look at Master Dogen’s “Maka-hannya-haramitsu”. (Chapter 2 in the 95 chapters Shobogenzo)

- Fwiw. -

For more convenient reading click on the picture below where the text is.

Ridiculousness

There are forged works of art. If they may be so called.

- There may be a work worth x millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.

- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.

- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - but art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.

- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual artistic experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.

However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.

Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!

- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry no artistic value of themselves. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.

- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value of this experience. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. Now do notice, - (!) in case it would be one person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - There is the situation where no one is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture as a piece of art - and as it seems no one is even expected to - fucking idiots would just try to investigate who (!) made it, - and if it is a or b than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it.

- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.

Sameness

 When asking if two things are the same, - there is the question of what you call “the same”. Ultimately, - since one thing which is not one other second thing, - is not that second thing - it is not the same as it. - No two things can be the same since initially by what you naturally define as “same” you want these two things to be the same in everything, - which practically includes the fact that one of them is not the other one.

- Even if in any and every other aspect there will not be any difference, - the very fact that one thing is one thing and the other one is another, - not the first one mentioned, - is a difference in itself.

Beside that we better remember, as it seems, - that we are talking about phenomenal things. Had we been discussing the Reality itself, - there is only one, - so there is nothing to compare it to. All else is said to be delusion. - The phenomenal world. The phenomenal worlds. - Where nothing is perfect and nothing is complete, - as far as I understand. All is partial, - unless you just observe everything, - as it seems. – But if we still wish to compare things there, - the above will apply, - we can only compare choosing certain particular characters, - not otherwise. Though otherwise we know too, - apparently, - that no two things will ever match completely, - otherwise their past and future have to match too, - and it will not be easy to expect this.

A phenomenon (Written March 31st 2019)

There is almost no teacher, no true enlightened teacher I mean, - who presents things always in all fields exactly as they are. Since I was looking for a teacher, I happened to meet several. It seems to me unequivocally this is the situation.

The reasons are two: - The limitations of the listeners’ faith and understanding. People will not hear, sometimes, what they may not believe or what they would be unable to understand. The practical situation, may be, - that in reality one might not hear what basically he should, because another, who is also there, lacks in his trust of what is being said or in his spiritual ability of grasping certain things. For me personally this situation is sometimes terribly annoying. Sometimes not. Osho, for example, is terribly different from Yakusan. (Yakusan Igen, Yueshan Weiyan) And times are different too, today many things are difficult to say, and the further the audience a teacher wishes to address, - the narrower may be the limitations implied.

So far. I’ll drop it at that. I might just mention this post. And say the face of things may sometimes seem terribly ugly, particularly when things get emotional, even when true teachers spread their teaching in this world, - where ignorance is apparently incomparable and the emotional state of many (particularly today) touching ridiculousness.

So far.