Nobility vs. External Sensitivity

Buddhism is a religion of wisdom. Christianity is a religion of love. I am not interested in love generally. Some people are interested in love, altruism, morals, and possibly in things like grace or compassion. Some people are interested in truth and essence. Some people have an internal tendency and some people have an external tendency. - Obviously balance is necessary or at least useful and it may be natural for different abilities to complete each other. At the same time different people find different things appealing and have different qualifications they might follow in a natural way.

- My tendency has never been relating to the social facet. But this is not what the issue here is.

- It has been said that planets reincarnate like humans. Not just like humans but they generally incarnate. It has been said that in the last previous incarnation of our planet wisdom has developed. That its development has been completed there. On our present Earth love is to be developed. - It seems it still has a long way to go.

- In relation to this, Christianity is viewed, by some, who do seem to have a point in their ideas, - and that too may be an understatement, - as having an advantage over Buddhism. Kalo says in one of his books, about enlightenment, - “by means of the redemption it attains it is capable of attaining love and becoming its very self”. It seems to me only an enlightened could understand his words here. But in general his idea is that the phenomenon he is relating to only occurs in Christianity.

However, - as I said, - I find other things interesting. - In Buddhism, - absence of good and bad is revealed. - In Christianity it has no mentioning, - it is not emphasized, never it seems. - What makes you see one thing as better than another? Happiness is nothing. What is left then? An existence of an ability may be better than its absence. But here too, - it may be viewed as having no difference, - where one is not better than the other. I don’t think this ability, - to view this phenomenon of emptiness of any quality of goodness or its contrast, - is equally gained in Christianity.

- Certainly not in the same inherent manner. Acquiring this, not merely as an ability to be able to witness and be able to say it is so, - but as an inherent grasp going down to your most natural and spontaneous sight, - is a thing I would certainly like to gain. - It is not worthless. - Having been able to inherently and fully incorporate this understanding into your mind and being, - your action is different. - While in Christianity love is developed, - external sensitivity is valued and considered, - a person having been able to gain the virtue I am referring to here would act in a more refined manner, - more noble, - while still acting, still doing, - his natural behaviour would be freer of unwise concerns - his understanding relating to the absence of goodness and badness would naturally make his action more harmonious, more elegant, no doubt, - and this elegance is not devoid of value, as I tried to refer. I don’t know if it balances out love in its value, - but it is certainly more interesting for me, more appealing. No doubt more beautiful, but this is not necessarily the point to judge by. So far.

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 -)