Four Winds wrote...
>>> But you should agree Eden is everywhere, even if the simple
>>> of my garden does not offer T.V. adds. Considering the circumstances,
>>> I'm harmonizing a more Zen understanding.. Like the lama wearing a
>>> using train planes and automobiles.
>>### - we can call it anything you like, the original world (and awareness)
>>is still there, all the animals are still there living in it, it's just
>>humans who have moved away from it (perceptually) by superimposing their
>>versions on top until only our own versions of it (our own rational
>>explanations) is all that appears to exist for us
> I see your point. In fact it is rather cristal clear you will not accept
> explanations as representing what it all really is and even really means.
### - that's correct... the best 'reason' (language) can ever manage do is
to 'allude' to something it can never fully and/or 'difinitively' describe
because what it seeks to describe actually exists beyond it's ability to
'conceptualise' (iow conceptualisations are by their own nature not
> That which is often considered modern scientific thinking is probably
> considered a sad, or very rough theory of everything.
> Basically again I can agree with you, and already said 'there is more than
> meet the eye', and that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
> But while you maybe starting to give-up on reason itself along your path
> become some sort of Buddhist monk; I think it barely needs hope and
> a greater vision of the whole.
> I'm going to come back to what 'Science' can offer in comparison to
> The Religious thinking 'ASSUMED' by most of their beleivers.
>>>>### - 2 versions there... life & being-alive from the existential pov
>>>>life & being-alive from the rational pov (i.e. it's the rational pov
>>>>ruined everything for us by corrupting our former perception of the
>>>>whole in favour of the multifaceted partial)
>>> Here you say that the rational pov ruined everything. And I don't want
>>> just prove you wrong on that, but you will agree it quickly becomes
>>> I personally think 'Buddhism' is serving a rationalization on just about
>>> everything, and often appealing from its simplicity and apparent truth.
>>> It really feels like the ancient great sophists who could prove just
>>> everything using ambiguities of a language.
>>> Somehow, I agree the buddhist teachers use that 'reason' to their goals
>>> which are indeed to bring detachment to it. That's the hidden paradox,
>>> trying to make one reason the reason he should not use reasonning,
>>> for that same rational ruins everything.
>>### - buddhism in that sense is like a half-way house, you gradually move
>>there from the usual rational, and then once you are fully there it's much
>>easier to leave reason (the form) behind altogether using only a small
> With all due respect; This sounds to me like the progression of just about
> anything else we can learn. Even mental illness can grow like that until
> the person goes 'whoops-i-doo.', straightjacket.
> You know the mind is quite plastic already; You said it yourself.
> I'm not surprized Buddhism can offer to unlearn whatever form of reason
> it choses; If the radical Islamists/Christians can turn some of theirs
> kamikaze/martyrs, in the name of some invisible dogmatic concept.
### - which is why i suggested that buddhism is 'sane' as compared to many
because it seeks to liberate its members instead of keeping them, for
example, until after they are dead :)
>>iow we all start off using some form of rationality, usually
>>undisciplined... buddhism is an alternate + very disciplined form of
>>cultivated rationality designed to gradually entice reason into having
>>certain realisations about itself & the way it functions, thus one is
>>slowly learning detachment to the 'language' of reason while at the same
>>time being introduced to something a little bit more direct in terms of
> Very interesting... The problem is that while I'm just about your age to
> be able to fancy pop music group 'Genesis'; I have never noticed a
> Buddhist with that kind of detachment; Not being acting like a little
> brainwashed automaton, kneeling down to some ceremony, smelling
> incents, and koanning around in real detachment.
### - i have seen & met them... only they were no longer buddhists (or
'anything' come to that:) they had become just very strange aloof people...
some might even say (and did say) that they were (or appeared to be) mad...
but they weren't mad, just very different :)
> I think they are no more than Extremely learnes and skilled human
> beings in that field of Buddhism, which deals with peace and harmony
> including a lot of specialized knowledge from the ancient books.
> I can treat them with respect and some admiration, like I would for a
> great scientist or a formidable acrobat. I consider them a bit higher
> in the scale of 'innate' wisdom than most of the priests of other
> The last ones not denouncing the radicalism and rampant contradictions
> being applied now.
### - this just describes the 'outer' form (the appearance) of buddhism
while totally neglecting its stated goals... which is liberation 'from' the
outward organised form (i.e. none of the other organised religions
offer this 'before' death for example :)
> *Unfortunately* - Humans are limited in choice and time...
> Then they may be born in India and Buddhism may make greater sense,
> or be born in America where society is keener to a freedom of thought,
> free of dogmas through Scientific thinking alone... Of course, most people
> eventually seek 'Absolutes' and get sucked in by Gurus or religious
### - absolutes make more rational sense than having nothing at all hehehe
(i.e. in that case reason goes for absolutes as an extreme solution rather
than accepting its own potential demise, reason is entirely self-serving :)
> Merlin says to Arthur: "Looking at the cake is like looking at the future,
> you've tasted it you don't know what it's like, and then of course, ...
> Unfortunately, some cakes are fruits for the nuts.
### - lol :)
>>> I'm saying it does not ruin it for me, and I don't think it was
>>> to ruin, like I don't think my hands were meant to fight or my mouth to
>>> "Un esprit saint dans un corps saint." // 'Healthy mind in an healthy
>>> Mind is required.. Even if it means 'human error' can derive from it
>>### - i think we can have both... but to remain sane the order they
>>in is important - e.g. the current/standard order is to place reason first
>>in any form and intuition 2nd, to the point that the intuition side of
>>awareness hardly exists for most people... iow the other/natural side of
>>our awareness is badly undeveloped/totally dominated by the over-developed
> I totally agree, but there are a good number of natural born gifted ones
> in each domains. There is the old cliche which is not so wrong about
> women in general being more intuitive than men.
> I agree we could all learn(*) a great deal from some Shikantaza practice.
> (*) Learn to unlearn a lot, while developping awareness and intuition.
### - nature always produces the whole spectrum/range from natural moron to
natural genius, the average being somewhere in the middle for most... (i.e.
average intelligence is more than enough to accomplish everything depending
on how it's trained)
>>### - we can understand the universe only from the pov of being part of
>>whole, not from the rational pov which by nature is divisive and thus
>>separates itself from the whole in order to... think :)
> You are hopefully right, even if it appears impossible to explain this
> from any language point of view. But the materialistic part of reality
> often makes it a logical/reasonnable priority to fix the roof first
> we are not made to swim as well as the fishes in the sea.
> Rational is considered a better way to gain benefits from any situation.
> Benefits include life saving.
> Of course, if one starts to think the only worthy benefits are
> they may be missing on the whole idea of Life. I agree.
### - all that appears to exist from the pov of rationality... is more
+ it is all & everything that rationality ever expects to find
plus when it 'does' find something different to its own criteria for
acceptance, it either just totally ignores it, and/or tries to force it to
fit into an as-rational-as-possible box (the bottom drawer/curious anomaly
box with very low priority attached and so it's usually forgotten pretty
quickly as being an isolated event : an 'un-connected' event)
>>> You use the word 'conflict' to stretch your own pov. It is not a logical
>>> but an emotional one. I have two hands and see no conflict.
>>### - if you see/count 2 hands then one become the left & the other the
>>right and so the conflicts begin... (e.g. if thine eye be single then the
>>whole body will be full of light etc, a seeming paradox when everyone has
> I understand what you are talking about.
> A former Guru talked about "hearing the sound of a single hand
> clapping.".. LOL
> Unfortunately, I'm not convinced this kind of non-reasonning can be
> constructive as the answer to the original question.
### - (laughing:) but it's not meant to be constructive but
'de-constructive' hehehe :)
> I'll have to leave you to see multiplicity as a necessary conflict, and
> continue to consider it plain diversity bound in part with intelligible
> in-intelligible harmony (rational/non-rational bounds) (causal /
### - imho that's just the rational mind at-work going around 'counting' the
things it has so far managed to perceptually separate from the whole until
it has a 'collection' of such identified + acceptable criteria-responding
items, which it then reserves for its own use by justifying itself (a kind
of built-in self-survival program that occasionally has to rely on
subterfuges to skip-over the blank (unrecognised/un-catalogued) areas in
its search for a connection, for a 'unity' between all the pieces in its
collection, a rational self-justification for its own existence)
>>> Done that a long time ago.
>>> I'm not a slave of my made language. I've got that part of me which is
>>> invoqued upon thinking "Who am I.", before that God in which I believe.
>>> There is no more language required beyond that moment.
>>> The real 'Me' speaks no language but thought itself.
>>> Then I go on with the given circumstances, of course. :)
### - by default we only know our self in a rational way, and so it
automatically seems like that is all there is to us... after which we of
course expand on that by filling it up with more & more of the same kinds of
rationally recognisable + identifiable things (so called facts) until our
whole perception seems to consist of that entirely...
then one day we might have a very strange experience too powerful to just
ignore, and then one of several things may happen as a result... e.g. unless
they happened to have some sort of inner discipline already, people under
those circumstances sometimes drop the ball (of rationality) altogether...
in which case a nervous breakdown is not uncommon
but if a person has already learned to stand very calmly right in the core
of themselves (in the core of their awareness) then if rationality breaks
down or disappears then so what! you just carry on doing the best you can
under the circumstances, that's what:)
> (TAG: ###3)
>>### - there is a perception beyond thoughts & thinking that requires no
>>justification other than it IS... it is a perception where the actions
>>themselves are more important (more immediate) than just thinking about
>>acting... one 'acts' and then one 'knows' in that order, whereas the
>>intellectual ties himself up with knowing everything beforehand and thus
>>becomes impossible for him to act 'beyond' his knowledge except by
> Hehe indeed.
> I see no point argueing this point of view if in the end 'either'
> can end-up commiting accidents.
>>> Is Eden Paradise ?.. If not, then one must accept them both as part of
>>> whole and if one is lesser; Surely none the less necessary.
>>> Therefore I am humble and seek not to make my Life more complete.
>>> I seek to Live it, even if it hurts, even if I can momentarily know
>>> words, this is Eden.
>>> "It only hurts when I laugh." -Old joke
>>### - smile... once the world looked like a garden to us... now it looks
>>like a factory and we only have dreams/stories about a lovely garden where
>>no one had to work for as living (i'll go into this bit about 'reasoning'
>>not to reason a bit more in the new thread)
> I don't think so.
> I have a beautiful garden just outside my house, full of blooming flowers,
> trees and fine arrangements, plus insects, birds and all.
> There are beautiful forests around, mountains and lakes. Parks inside
> the cities and amusement parks for the little ones.... It's only your pov
> if you feel like we are missing more wilderness.
> Do you see Buddhist monks in GreenPeace movement, trying to save
> fauna or flora ?... No. Well; the rational people are working on it to
> prevent some mistakes while we agree nobody is there yet...
> But we are, just not seeing it.
### - it's not about missing more wilderness, it's about huge cities dumped
on top of the existing wilderness until it appears no wilderness exists...
but it's still there underneath all that concrete... plus if you look
carefully you will easily see the occasional blade of grass poking up
through the cracks + also the quiet team of people that have been hired to
go around getting rid of them (usually at night) in order to maintain the
illusion that the glorious city is all there is and ever was :)
>>> I'm fine with this Slider.
>>> It is supreme to allow beings construct partial explanations that are
>>> meant for the mind.
>>> What is required is simply Understanding of the whole process.
>>### - yes, this is the crucial insight (into it's own nature) that reason
>>requires in order to become detached about having the final say in
>>absolutely everything... and because after this lesson reason is able to
>>allow itself to stand to one side for a moment in order to let something
>>else in our nature come forward and act... (reason at this point becomes
>>merely a recorder, an intelligent + observing witness etc, not so
> I see we can share this thought... And share this name 'Understanding'.
> Although I would not go as far as pretending my Understanding is
> always on the ready; As the proper practice of Shikan taza suggests.
### - it IS there all the time even if we are not there to see it hehe...
>>> What is more important is to learn to fix the roof before the rain
>>### - certainly hehe, but only after you get wet a few times comes the
>>clear idea to fix it, smile :)
> Eh. <:) :)
>>>>i.e. the only 'better' i know (and incidentally the only thing that
>>>>'actually' do any good for the world/makes it actually any better etc)
>>>>just fix up yourself first, to evolve yourself first
>>> I stop this here. That's the idea.
>>> Remember I spoke of 'Human error' and you seemed perplexed as to
>>> what circumstances / context.. What you are talking about here is how
>>> it always begins. :D
>>> You should know better; Or do you really ?
>>### - all i know is that it's possible to get carried away with fixing the
>>world as being something rationally 'good' to do and yet never really
>>achieve anything, when really the best thing anyone could ever do for the
>>world is to just become correct themselves (hardly anyone bothers to do
> I'm not going to argue with you on that. It makes perfect sense while not
> always obvious. I just wanted to put the emphasis on 'human error'.
> Even trying to fix ourself first may not be so obvious. Why not feel a
> need to change religion, or seek a Guru for help; Then one may end-up
> in a pond with the fishes, or with a neat explosive belt with no refunds
> .. Or one can grow self pitty, selfish or selfless...
> Or like most; Sleepless over it.
>>> Somehow, it is also an illusion to consider mistakes and human
>>> errors because somehow even if we can do better, we may not
>>> always be fully aware how; Therefore we already did the best we knew,
>>> or we thought we knew.
>>### - it's a good habit to cultivate
> I'm not sure I understand. But if this is a suggestion to 'cultivate' the
> success we do, then it would not prevent spiralling to worse.
> If this means cultivating awareness, then I can agree.
> In fact, this is quite an excellent reminder for me right here and now.
> I have a huge place in my mind, garden of awareness, yet I do not
> visit the place often enough to benefit from its produce.
> But I also agree there is room for even more culture of this kind.
### - it's a good habit to cultivate honestly doing the best one can under
the circumstances + realising that is the case and no more... (there's no
need to be any more 'complex' than that i mean)
> A fine thought for today... Thanks !
>>>>### - ahhh you're right on it guy... it's right there... plus let's see
>>>>we can't give it a little tweak hehe :)
>>> I may need a hundred slaves to pull that beam out of the way.
>>> Make them 'cute' females, and we'll be tweaking together to heaven.
>>### - cute females tweaking my beam sounds like heaven to me! lol i'm
>>let's go! :)
> I'm glad you can also share that sense of humor with a dash of ridicule.
> To me; It shows a mind with fertile ground and open fields ready for more.
> But Coming to think of this; If we can feel 'happy and amused';
> Why did you previously replied when I suggested it was also okay to
> feel sad or imperfect ?
### - happy & amused is a fairly safe state of awareness to hold (unless you
become giddy/drunk on it and start doing stupid things to spoil it i mean)
other moods need to be observed first for their total effect upon perception
> ### - Namaste for sure... just don't do anything about feeling sad or
> imperfect or lonely whatever... just 'observe' it is fine... moods are
> very important indicators of our differing + changing states of awareness
> resulting perception if we can learn to 'read' them instead of routinely
> reacting 'to' them :)
> I would think a natural reaction to sadness is to cry.
> And a natural reaction to amusement is to laugh.
> Both feelings happen even if they only mean changing states of awareness.
> Buddha never refrained from laughing (in general); So I suggest it is
> also a good idea to cry when the mood calls.
> One of the smartest song Lyric Madonna wrote is:
> "Express yourself, don't repress yourself."
### - which is fine for people brought up in a prison where self-expression
has been deliberately crushed for the purposes of running everything
but as much as some people are able to use drink to consciously enter into
an altered state of awareness instead of for the kicks, some people are also
able to use the doors created by (or just indicated by) their
differing/changing moods instead of thinking that's how they must really
feel and then start looking around for 'reason's for their sadness or
whatever, i.e. acting it out instead of just acknowledging it as a change of
> But now is the time to laugh about it and gain awareness these
> silly thoughts are simply going by.
>>> In the sense, I tweak by not getting to much involved with
>>> that part of myself. Not renouncing it, but focusing on that
>>> which I hope is 'better'.
>>### - one honestly does the best one can under the circumstances which
>>perforce improves over time and with practice... and because we all get
>>stuck sometimes and don't know what to do about a given situation and all
>>one has to do is to again just ask oneself what then is the best i can do
>>under the circumstances, and instead of being stuck everything begins to
>>move along again... easy to remember, easy to apply :)
> I know you are right..
> I know I need more discipline..
> I picked another reminder of yours "It's a good habit to cultivate.";
> I linked it to my own garden of awareness I'm neglecting.
> Both are obviously linked... Seeking awareness from this
> garden figure of speech. Seeking what I should be aware NOW,
> that is right there for me to pick, because the 'Better' guides me.
> But I do not accept the purist, spitritual as the one true path.
> I acknowledge, laughter as well as sorrow if it also means
> I can laugh or cry when time comes.
### - one can feel desperately hungry and so is driven to find food... or
one can just notice that the body requires feeding rather badly... one mode
is filled with (for example) panic, the other doesn't lose it's calm
composure and as such is more likely to survive/find food
> It is very tempting for me to go along and try to reason that
> to the fullest I can. Then I would find more reasonnable in the
> context to seek completion to my career, or at least faster
> achievements possible. Then again, I could value my detachment
> and allow for what I hope a greater happening shall happen.
> It is not rational, but still needs more discipline.
> So I'm not going to extend my reason to its fullest (stupidity)
> but allow discipline to perforce because you shed this light where
> I know all things are. Indeed, that's where no justification is needed,
> but in full understanding of your words; Action is.
> Still... It is not 'obvious' to _act discipline_ without trying to know
> has to be done first. (in respect to your earlier comment ###3).
> My first guess is that I already know without words, and should simply
> act with this thought in mind.
### - to let go and just go-along with the flow (kind of thing) isn't easy
for the strictly 'rational' man who quite naturally looks for some kind of
way to rationally steer/guide everything within his field of view...
>>> I failed a number of times and wish I could have done differently
>>### - such a philosophy (as doing your best etc) doesn't leave any room
>>wishing and/or hoping to have done any better than you did at the time,
>>if later with hindsight you can see now something better you could have
>>then you have definitely learned something for next time (the best one can
>>do under the circumstances then is to not beat yourself up over it but of
>>course to just try to apply it next time... thus one advances because it
>>becomes 'possible' to advance in a steady + completely conscious manner
>>which 'also' improves over time, a win/win situation one has created for
> I really don't have much to add to your teaching here, except that I found
> difficult to snip it out; Just because I would not argue with this gem.
> The perfect application is now just to advance forward.
>>> If there were only one Better and one Truth,
>>> That God of mine sure made a awfully big Universe to place it.
>>> I mean; What is Harmony without Diversity.
>>### - i totally agree with you, and because without diversity (below)
>>something like the lotus wouldn't grow up out of it :)
> Feels good to be appreciated from time to time. :)
>>> Yet.. You brought the thought of the Buddha pointing at the
>>> Lotus growing on a pile of turd.
>>> Let's rename 'turd', fertilizer' and agree.
>>> But above all; We both can understand you made your point well,
>>> and indeed that Lotus is 'bettering/growing' not by changing the
>>> outside 'shit', but taking the 'good' from it.
>>### - more... maybe even 'because' of the shit comes a lotus?
> Ah; Yes.. I see that too.
> But we should be prudent not to stretch the allegory too much
> and rationalize to justify one's actions. Because Lotus do not shit,
> while men do.
### - lol :)
Somehow this last comment still agrees with your
> suggestion: "it's just the humans who have moved away from it
> (perceptually) by superimposing their own versions on top until
> only our own versions of it "..In other words, we brought our own
> shit on top of the one naturally feeding.
> While the former is natural the later man made version is overabundant
> and proven toxic.
### - what the hell is going on someone asked, and buddha just pointed to
the pure while lotus appearing out of the muck (buddha was one of those
white lotus's if you understand + said he was only the 83rd or something ;)
>>>>### - i will always accept the best a person can do under the
>>> Hahaha !
>>> Which makes me think I have a fine bottle of wine to celebrate Lotus &
>>> Don't worry.. I know you said the circumstances, not the influences.. ;)
>>### - "Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." --last words of the wise
>>old man on the mountain ;-)
> Hush... There are fools who could misinterpret you on that, especially
> the everything is permitted part.
### - there are certainly people who would use that to justify crappy
behaviour, but we wont even consider those types :)
> We live in a rainbow of chaos. - Paul Cezanne
> Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive,
> but what they conceal is vital.
> - Aaron Levenstein
> Use what talent you possess. The woods would be very
> silent if no birds sang except those that sang best.
> - Henry Van Dyke
### - heh heh heh, plus try/taste this one from a rather astute observer:)
"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like
the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal." --- Albert Einstein :)
"We paved paradise and put up a parking lott." (popular song :)