Flexibilty of mind and freedom from fixed conceptions

Years ago we were in a different place. - Science, as foolish as it may have become, - has advanced. - Things most don’t doubt today might have been seen in a totally different manner in another time.

- Suppose we would tell of current technology of rather recent time to a person living before electricity has become known. - Nothing similar would have been familiar to him or her off his or her life else than legends perhaps or what would have been called magic. - Suppose “magic” was not accepted as a real phenomenon there would have been nothing else left. - What would a person in such a time (not so distant if you consider the age of humanity) think of you if you would try to tell him of what you know off your everyday life?

- Were you talking to people where beliefs in supernatural (so to speak) were still prevailing they might relate your ideas to those as the general appearance is rather the same. - But put this aside. - Suppose we are talking about a situation similar to the present one, - where materialistic ideas rule and materialistic attitudes are common. If you would have tried to speak of what you know as solid reality undoubted today by the great majority it might have been seriously difficult to gain serious attention. - At a time people were driving in carriages pulled by horses how could you tell them of spaceships going up to the moon? Of an autonomic car? - Of cars going at the speed racing cars can go at?

- People usually are affected by their surroundings. - Quite further than they imagine. - There is a phenomenon of absorbing views or ideas off these surroundings. - It is not necessarily easy for a person to accept views in disaccordance with those among whom he lives. - Though of course this is not the only point here. Or the main point.

- But still and again, - were we talking of those new things having entered our lives in the last decades, - smartphones, computers, - airplanes, spaceships I already mentioned, - TV screens, even radios, - to someone where reality had to do with carving wood or as well creating metal things and tools, nothing further than a steam engine. - What response would we gain? - What attitude would we face? - What would we ourselves seem to be in the eyes of such a person? - Depend on the person himself or herself of course, - but quite generally we might have been viewed as unwise or unhealthy.

- Particularly if we would repeatedly attempt to deliver the message. - Humanity would have been unprepared. There was not really a need for such a preparation at the time, - but anyway we can say that. - This is an allegory. A parable. - For another phenomenon existing today at the blindness of so many. - The reaction of a typical man or woman at a time we were discussing when hearing of future abilities of coming technology may be quite similar, in its nature, - to the typical reaction of typical materialists when relating to the occult. To what their physical senses cannot grasp. To what they are familiar to the denial of by their friends and acquaintances. - Being an intellectual is quite close to being stupid. Many are far from any awareness of this fact. - Wisdom has to do with depth. - Intellectual consideration is by nature shallow. - I will not explain this here. Many who are aware of it (of the severe minority they are generally) would not find it easy to make it comprehensible to others.

Eyes are not gained overnight. - Nor can one give his own to others. When their very existence is denied things get much harder. - Anyway, - I generally believe the general idea presented here, - of the similarity between the assumed view of one living at the mentioned time unable to accept reports of practically possible and real further advancements far from the nature of this-person’s everyday thinking - and the reaction we would find today among learned people fed with contemporary views shared by many, - could and will be easily understood. One needs to be no genius in order to get it. However, - the depth of grasping may differ. Obviously I don’t expect readers would utterly change what they think just reading this. But it would make its contribution. - So far.

Written April 21^st 2023.

Telling

One of the differences between a clever or an intelligent person and between a wise person is that if you explain things one by one, step after step, logically, to an intelligent person - he might understand what you are saying. A wise person might understand without explanations. - One other thing is that a wise person might not be so interested in attempting to tell or explain what is the difference between wisdom and being clever. He knows what these things are, - it is not necessarily so interesting to put things in words or to create definitions. - An intelligent person who has not come to wisdom might wonder what actually the difference is.

- Clearly a wise person knows what being intelligent is, you might say perhaps that every child does, - but an intelligent person does not necessarily know what wisdom is. I don’t know if it ought to be viewed as a surprise - but in practice you might find very intelligent people imagining their cleverness to imply or be the phenomenon of wisdom.

Obviously an intelligent person would excel at things like exact science, but a wise one would not normally necessarily find interest in such a field. - Clearly it is not that easy to just give a simple definition of what these two are, - or anyway clarify the issue for all those who are concerned or interested, - (plus) particularly perhaps while there is another third layer, in between the two, which in English it seems would only be referred to as intelligence as well. - In Hebrew we have another word for it, - but it does not mean everyone are aware of what exactly the meaning is.

- Relating to computers it might be easy to refer: - Wisdom it seems would be a quality of the “main” of a program, intelligence would rather be a quality of some particular procedure (or of some particular procedures) not running in real time and of a rather low rank in the hirarchy within the program.

- Inteligence can be easily examined, logical structures can be obviously verified step by step, - also tests can be held to examine or tell how skilled a person is - while the results can even be told by a computer, - this isn’t any news. - But one can not have a computerized test to measure wisdom. There is no such thing. - It is different. But it is today to a great extent a forgoten thing. - Because silly intellectuals are much blind to it, - otherwise they wouldn’t be what they are - intellectuals; - being [an] intellectual is much like being stupid, - but today there are not even many to whom there may be a point in saying this. - And also because [as I said] one can not run a computerized test to measure it, - to measure wisdom. If one does have it than one can see it in others. Not necessarily always, but still clearly as a general rule. - Sometimes one who doesn’t have it that much would still be able to see it too. - Sometimes it can be concluded. And various levels of it could be seen as different things. - So when one talks of wisdom, - even if one is referring to a real thing, - in another way he might still not really know what the thing is.




So far. - For now, that is.

10.2.22 – Free mentality in primitive organisms and divine beings

There are beings who do not have a brain. – We, of course, - do. – A jellyfish or a sea anemone do not. We move our hands and feet accordingly. – We can not escape our brain. – We can not escape our self consciousness too, - generally.

– Regarding those beings, - their organs act independently. – Their arms are not directed off a brain, - as with us. – This would also mean they (their arms) are not dependent on each other.

Our mind ever acts linearically. – Like a line, - not two lines, not three, - not a wide space, - always one thing after one thing. – Our mental existence always seems to be like a train, - it cannot go two places at the same time. – We might think of two things, - but generally speaking and as-a-matter-of-principle not actually simultaneously. – If we think of a computer the same would be true of course too, - it could jump back and forth in between two things – however quick, - but its line of course is one. These beings are apparently not like that. – Their general and fundamental mentality is different. – It seems it would inevitably have a capability of being wider.

– This does seem like an extreme difference. – We are so accustomed to our form of mentality we seem to naturally assume nothing else is possible. Sadly enough, we could not ask a sea anemone or a jellyfish. – I do not know of any advanced (physical) being of this feature. – I generally assume what we call “divine” is of this feature. Our brain and mental system cage us and keep us away from it. Obviously there would be a reason, - but still this is the way things are, - as it seems.

– Such a wider mind is not dependent on an ego. – An ego has to be centred. – Once you are free of this one-point origination there is no place for the sense of “I” to form itself. There is no need for it, - and the wider flow does not need to imagine it has some self anchor to start off. – For the purpose of just acting there is no need for some sort of awareness “I am acting”. Ignorance kills the secular and the materialistics. – We can be so wrong. – I am not experiencing this, - I do not know it off a real experience, - but the idea seems solid enough. – Whatever the means intended in introducing our brain and spinal system, - the narrowing it inevitably forces must at some time be broken free of. – Only then can true knowledge of what is flow freely through our being which is no longer there, - needless of any conscious affirmation or basic wish for knowing anything in a conscious mind else than as an inherent part of action carried out.

As short as possible

Jesus speaks of his “Father in Heaven”. The father is not in Heaven. The father is what in Hindu is referred to as “Brahman”, the “Tao” of Lao Tse, the reality Gudo Nishijima - as others, - speaks about. Whatever the reason Jesus was using the expression as he did, - you might say the Heaven is in the Father, - not the other way around. - If it exists at all, - that is: - You might say nothing exists at all else than this “father” - the reality, - and all else is its dream, our dream, - but put this aside, - and I have not witnessed this last point, - if we do see the Heaven and the Earth as existing, - than they are inside of the father, - never have left its womb, - as I said in the beginning.

Written on September 12^th 2001. I might wish someone else would have written it, - but as I do not know of anyone who did in an accessible manner here on the web, - I wrote this. So far.