Posts Tagged ‘reality’

Reaping the rare rewards of respecting reality

July 8, 2015

First, you may be surprised by how rare it is for people to respect reality (at least how I mean that phrase). Before I detail that, why would anyone be interested in what I mean by respecting reality? What are the rewards available (or the costs that can be easily avoided)?

last1

If you have already looked at the results reported on this site, then you know that the rewards can be unusually attractive. For investors, the rewards are safe, large profits. Plus, respecting reality allows for extremely efficient benefits in other areas like health, family, and business.

21st century weight loss

big rise in traffic 300

> Respect: that simply means to notice something for what it is. Be willing to admit to having presumptions or expectations. Then if your observations do not match your presumptions, be willing to update your expectations to match reality.

What many people do is to condemn realities that do not match their expectations. They basically panic. They want to change other people, change the weather, change the government, and change the economy.

All of those outcomes are possible. The problem with promoting change in a hysterical panic is that it is easy to miss a lot of relevant details. It is easy to place blame hysterically and then make enemies and attract opposition and resistance.
> Why don’t people respect reality?

The short answer is social programming. I will say more about that below.

> Reaping

The principle of harvest

I will illustrate the principle of harvest with a parable.
Imagine ten people go to a casino. First, five of them borrow $200,000 to spend. The other five only use their own money.

First, would you presume that the people who are risking their own money might be more selective about how they use it? The five who borrowed money probably do not have much money of their own. However, just because they borrowed the money does not mean they will spend it foolishly. If someone is extremely desperate and excited by greed, then they will eagerly borrow money to spend it on absolutely anything that they think has a “decent” chance of making a profit. in contrast, the people risking their own money may be much more picky.
So, eight of them go to play the slot machines. They do not really consider the odds of winning. They are not at the casino to make a profit. They are mainly there for entertainement. They perceive that they have more money than they need, so they do not mind if the odds strongly favor the casino.

If they win, they will get an emotional high. If they lose, they complain briefly but then come back again soon to do the same thing again.

Again, they are not there to consistently profit. They are there to feel better. Maybe they came to socialize. Maybe they came to sabotage their finances, then create a safe justification for displaying grief (which can be shamed as basically a mental illness in cultures that feature the most hysterical forms of political-correctness or fascism).

Also, the gamblers may feel tense (maybe about money, but often about something else). They are willing to spend money on a distraction to give them some relief from their tension.
The other two walk right past the slot machines. They are there to earn money. They are not there for socializing or games of luck. They are there for games of skill.

So, they play cards. Maybe they play poker. They might watch the players at a few different tables and look for a table where they think they are most likely to do well.

Before they start playing, they learn the rules of the game. Then, when they start playing, they look carefully at their cards. They are willing to discard to improve their chances of winning. They place their bets based on what they see in their own hand and what they observe at the poker table.
If they lose, they learn. They probably do not blame anyone at the table. They do not say they want to find a politician who will change the rules of poker.

If they win, they also learn. The more that they win, the more that they are interested in being an even better competitor.
Finally, imagine that one of the eight who was playing slots comes over to play poker as well. Maybe they are playing with their own money (not borrowed money). If so, they might be more disciplined and conservative.

If they do not know the rules, they might still play, but they will bet small. They will be conservative. They are mainly there to learn, with no expectation to win every single hand.

Maybe they are disappointed at the results of gambling on slot machines. Maybe they are ready for better odds and more discipline.

Will they be willing to look at the cards in their hand? Will they be willing to discard? Will they be interested in what the other players are doing?

So, back to the principle of harvest, if someone places a lot of bets that are low-quality bets, then what results could be expected? They might do well for a while, but eventually their lack of discipline will probably be very expensive.

What about someone who place only a few big bets, but all of them are very good odds. They may lose half the time or even more. However, if they manage their money so that they never risk a large amount of their assets (their chips), then eventually they can build up quite consistent profits.

In some games, they would prefer to fold whenever they get dealt very bad cards. They do not need to play every round to the end. They are there to look for the best opportunities and then to capitalize on them. (They might even invest in the casino itself.)
>

Now, what games does the casino promote most? They build a lot of emotion around a grand prize, then create a game that has extremely good odds for the casino.

They are similar to governments selling lottery tickets to transfer wealth from the purchasers to the government. Sure, the government may pay out a few big prizes occasionally, but the prize money
that they pay out is just a small fraction of the revenues that they receive from selling lottery tickets.

The business of the casino is to attract people to come to play games with very good odds for the casino (to enrich the casino). The casino wants to attract people who will be the donors for a transfer of wealth to the casino. The more that excited, desperate people come and dump their money in to bad bets, the better that is for those who own and operate the casino.
>

Shorter version of “the harvest principle: you can only reap what you sow.”

If you plant seeds for sweet red apples, you can get sweet red apples. If you plant seeds for tart green apples, those seeds never produce sweet red apples.
Stock markets (and other investment markets) are a lot like casinos. They do not produce any wealth. They simply transfer wealth. On average, they transfer wealth from the undisciplined to the disciplined. Sometimes the transfer is sudden and large. Sometimes the transfer is slow and steady.

Reality: It is everywhere. Nothing is beyond it. It is omnipresent.

There is no power beyond it. It is omnipotent.

There is no knowledge outside of it. There is nothing before it or after it. It is eternal.
In certain ancient spiritual traditions, the label for something that is eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent is “the Almighty God.” The idea of those teachings is that everything is made through the same process. Villains, victims, and saviors are all created by that same creative process.

Some people argue over various real words. Some say “I do not believe in reality. Can you prove that reality exists? How can you say that reality is everywhere? I do not see reality anywhere at all?”

Those people may be hysterical. They could argue over the word God or the word nature or the word universe. Does the universe exist or not? Is nature eternal? Does reality end 24 miles to the east?
Next, what is the Will of God? If something happens, then we can call that the Will of God. Whatever happens, how it happens, and when it happens are simply details that we can respect.
Why are there casinos that attract people to blow money on odds that are almost as bad as a state lottery? If it exists, it is God’s will for it to exist.

Why are there governments that threaten violence against people who do not give a big portion of their wealth to the government in the form of taxes? If it exists, it is God’s will for it to exist.

Another ancient teaching is that if we respect the creative process behind every detail of reality, then we will also respect every creation (including every creature). Even though we may be repulsed by a particular creature or disgusted or horrified, we can still respect every creature as a manifestation of the will of Nature.

When a Pharisee asked Jesus Christ what teachings were the most important, that is the answer recorded in the Bible as what Jesus said in response. Some people might repeat the words of a translation and even worship certain words of a certain translation.

We can respect that, right? After all, if something happens, then that is God’s will, right?

Some people learn a story about respecting reality. They might find it intriguing. Maybe they keep learning from that story for years or decades after they first learn it.

What rewards can be reaped from respecting reality? First, every single risk that exists can be respected and sometime svery easily avoided.

Next, respecting other people can be extremely conducive to enjoyable interactions and healthy relationships. Further, recognizing when an individual or group is operating in a hysterical panic can be beneficial. Dangers can be avoided.

In fact, some groups may even promote hysteria and panics in individuals or groups. Casinos, governments, and many other operations may thrive off of the obedient contributions of the masses.

What is a common form of hysteria promoted by governing institutions? Ideas of how things should be and should not be are important. If people are rewarded for repeating slogans like “the government cares about me personally,” then they may presume that state lotteries offer better odds than a casino game. They may presume that government-regulated businesses are safer or more favorable to the general public.

After years of conditioning and programming, the masses may develop a sense that “the government is our Almighty savior who is taking care of everything,” so they are complacent and naive. Then, when they plant seeds of green, sour apples, they can complain that the government should pass a law to make those seeds in to seeds that produce sweet red apples.

Why does mainstream religious programming result in so much confusion, social anxiety, and shame? Because it is God’s will for that programming to have the same effects as the programming of mainstream media and mainstream schools.

If people are programmed to worship slogans like “the mainstream media is our Almighty savior who is taking care of everything,” then that can be very good for business. Are you ready to respect the reality of propaganda and start benefiting from it rather than attempting to pretend it does not exist?

Paradise: what does that mean to you?

April 26, 2015



What would paradise be like? What words come to mind? How would you describe the experience that is most attractive to you… even inspiring?

We might think of momentary satisfaction. We have already experienced moments of distinct satisfaction, such as joy, pleasure, ecstasy, or euphoria.

However, the word paradise is not just about occasionally attaining a temporary high. We already know what it is like to experience temporary highs. Is there anything even more attractive than another occasional high?

We also may experience attraction to the idea of lasting relief from certain terrifying realities. If you have experienced terror, then you can understand the appeal of the idea of a permanent relief from terror.

Maybe we have been terrified of poverty or war, so we got intrigued by apolitical campaign about achieving global peace or even support a political war on poverty in the hopes of getting eternal prosperity. However, after thousands of years of peace-keeping armies and taxes to combat poverty, the peace-keeping armies keep doing violence and people who are struggling to survive keep getting targeted by cops and tax collectors and bomber pilots.

We can distract ourselves from the reality that there are systems that exist to conduct large-scale operations of violence among groups of humans, but we still know the reality. Somewhere, there is someone who is terrified of a particular government.  Maybe we are thankful that those people are terrified of our own government, but the reality of terror is still obvious. We still know that somewhere there is someone worried about how they are going to keep the tax collection court from sending armed soldiers to evict them and take over their property in the name of some distant government treasury.

Governments are operations of terror. In order to terrify other people in to chronic anxiety, governments repeatedly publicize certain terrifying aspects of their operations, like when they drop atomic bombs on some civilians and confine other civilians behind barbed wire fences and guard towers in “correctional” prisons and ethnic minority reservations.

While some of us may think of governments as possible saviors that offer a final solution to terrifying realities, other people think of governments as just another terrifying reality, similar to earthquakes and tornadoes. Some people want a government that will free them from anxiety. Others want freedom from anxiety about a particular government.

However what all of those people have in common is that they all experience anxiety. In fact, many of them anxiously await a government that will free them from anxiety about some of other form of government (some policy or politician or party). They donate money and time to promoting a government-provided salvation to government-related anxieties.

However, before there were any governments, there was still anxiety. Further,even if all governments suddenly ceased to function, that would not end anxiety. What is the real source of anxiety… much more ancient than the existence of organized government? What is it that really motivates people tobe interested in conceiving of a future paradise? From what reality do we really seek relief?

There is another obvious detail that we can ignore but we cannot deny, which is that we throughout our lives are repeatedly exposed to the reality of death. Plants live and die. We are exposed to death in stories and news reports. Eventually,people we know die. We pass by hospitals and mortuaries and even graveyards that are filled with human corpses. Over and over, we are reminded of the reality of death.

Many people are so anxious about their own death that they do ignore the reality of it, distracting themselves from any idea of their own death. Maybe they will pre-occupy themselves with condemning a particular government

However, what if you imagined complete freedom from any anxiety about dying?What if everything about dying was something that you could accept without any anxiety? If we are terrified of anxiety, then we naturally would reflexively attempt to avoid any topic that terrifies us.

The process of dying can involve pain. What if you were totally free of any anxiety about pain? In fact, what if the neurological production of a pain sensation is an expression of pre-existing anxiety? What is pain except a signal of anxiety about a wound? The wound may not be painful by itself… but once someone sees the wound, suddenly they may experience pain. Pain is a signal generated by the brain.

What exactly does pain signal? Pain signals anxiety. That is not “a mistake.”That is the neurological purpose of pain signals.

So, back to the specific issue of anxiety about death, some governing systems publicize stories about a heavenly after-life that not everyone will get to access. It is a reward for those who are most obedient to a particular set of values publicized by that system.

For instance, when Vikings soldiers were preparing to go to war, the high priests would indoctrinate them with stories of an eternal after-life. Those valiant heroes who boldly charge in to combat and draw first blood from the enemy would be selected after their death by sexy virgin angels called Valkyries who would take them to an eternal after-life of pleasure.

These stories were very good for morale. Some groups of soldiers were told these stories in their training and other groups of soldiers were not told these stories. The young soldiers who were first thoroughly traumatized in military training camps and then instructed with these stories were recognized by the high priests to be more effective as infantry. So, the stories became popular.

Young boys long before being drafted in to the armies were told these stories of how to get in to heaven. Further, they were also told stories of eternal torture in hell for those who did not conform to the behaviors indicated to them by Santa Claus.

Some might ask if these stories were in any way deceptive? Did some of the military officers doubt the accuracy of the stories, yet still tell those stories?

Others might say that military officers should not use deception or indoctrination. However, the reality is that deception and indoctrination exist.

In fact, only people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated would ever say “militaryofficers should never use deception.” If people have been traumatized thoroughly and then conditioned to reflexively condemn deception as “always wrong,”then they are simply displaying their obedience to the indoctrinated dogmas when they publicize their condemnations.

Which aspects of reality do birds condemn? Do birds condemn certain other birds for parroting the sounds of a mockingbird? Do birds say “their deception gives them an advantage in their effectiveness as hunters and if we refuse to use a particular method because of chronic tension about being punished if we use it,then the advantages of that method are unfair. We protest the fact that those other birds use methods that are more effective than ours! Our methods should be more effective. Isn’t there a politician who will at least promise us apolitical solution that can make our method more effective (or make the method that we refuse to use less effective)?”

What is the best way for governments to conduct their operations of terror? Different people will have different opinions about the issue. Generally speaking, people are often happy to ignore any operations of terror that benefit them, such as tax systems that provide free child care for their children through public schooling. If the vast majority of the income from the tax systems is used for other purposes besides providing free childcare, that is simply not relevant to most people.

As long as people perceive (accurately or not) that they are benefiting from an operation of organized terror, they tend not to condemn it. However, once people begin to feel threatened, there is a predictable coping mechanism which can be observed in thousands of cases.

Over and over, threatened people begin to criticize some government for bullying and intimidation. They condemn a particular foreign government. They condemn a particular party or individual. They condemn isolated cases of corruption.

Why? Condemning isolated cases of injustice is a coping mechanism to distract them from the simplicity of the nature of all governing systems. Governments are violent and terrifying. They systematically redistribute access to resources inequitably, benefiting certain special interest groups at the expense of certain groups of human resources (such as in colonized territories that have been recently liberated).

“We need a more honest government that is less deceptive. We also need a more honest currency system that is less biased.”

However, what is the purpose of using violence to create a currency system except for the systematic inequitable redistribution of resources? Of course some army will form a legal system and then the legal system will invent some debts owed to the legal system by the human resources. This system of extortion can be monopolized in a particular geographic area and called “legitimate taxation.”

The loyalists paint little shapes on ink on to signs and then parade down the street chanting that “We need political reforms to permanently bring us a better reality that fits with the presumptions that we were programmed to worship in free public training schools. We were repeatedly rewarded with social validation in school for repeating the slogans and values of the indoctrination system. Everyone should congratulate us on our loyalty and patriotism and then join us in our heroic parade. By the way, why are there so many hysterical people who oppose our favorite reforms and instead promote some other reforms as if those reforms were their only relief from hysteria about the eternal tortures that they were trained are waiting them for their sinful nature? How can those people be so naïve and so hysterical and so antagonistic toward the ideals that everyone that I like worships religiously?”

Many people are easily insulted, which means easily reminded of shames and terrors that they pretend not to have. Some people are virtually impossible to privately insult. If there is no credible sense of tangible injury or detriment to their interests, then the opinions of strangers may be of no special concern to them.

So, what is paradise? Paradise involves a harmony between natural instincts  conditioning.

There can be respect for social conditioning and social ideals, yet also a respect for all natural instincts (rather than the  condemnations programmed through social conditioning). In other words, there can be self-respect and grace… in contrast to the typical chronic physical tensions to totally avoid the display of any emotions labeled “negative” or “sinful.”

What are the typical instincts of all living creatures (even plants)? Basic instincts include the instinct for survival, for reproduction, and for adaptive superiority. Many organisms in a species may survive to sexual maturity and successfully reproduce. However, some organisms will thrive more than others.In the case of animals, some bloodlines will falter and disappear while others will expand.

Some groups of humans may excel in the use of language and even organize systems for military cooperation. They may establish systems for cultivating obedient soldiers, for developing superior military technology and protocols,and so on. Empires may form.

Within these empires, certain individuals and families may experience notably above average benefits. They may lobby for governments to benefit their economic interests. They may lobby for governments to burden their competitors with complex tax laws, prohibitive licensure requirements, or even criminal penalties to promote monopolies for their most lucrative operations.

What if paradise is not only for after the death of a physical body? Paradise could be a state of respect for one’s own patterns of activity. If I am most experienced with certain kinds of social interactions(certain social dynamics), that could be useful to accurately assess as I go about my life of recognizing my instinctual interests and promoting them.

If I lack certain skills that I may value and that other people may have, that may be useful to know. Maybe I form a lasting partnership with one or more of them. Or, maybe I form a temporary alliance (like when I pay someone else to fly an airplane to a destination where I would like to go… or where I would like an item or piece of mail to be transported).

For someone who is already in paradise, do they need to involve themselves in political reform movements to bring a particular government closer toward certain ideological slogans? They might choose to invest their time in that way, but a pre-occupation with pretending not to have any anxiety can be exhausting to the point of blindness. If I am not terrified of anxiety, then I do not have to agonize over how to prevent it. If I simply accept that anxiety and stress and chronic tension are realities that some people may experience, I can respect all experiences.

What is the best way for a propagandist in a military empire to create their systems of indoctrination and public relations? How can the attention of the masses be reliably governed/ programmed? How can their interpretations and perceptions be reliably governed/programmed? How can their behavioral responses to their programmed perceptions be best governed? What is the best way for an empire to promote obedient sacrifice by the human resources?

Paradise could include relief from habits of programmed guilt (which is the behavior of linguistic self-condemnation in an internalized dialogue about distress and safety, as in an “attack” by anxious panics of hysterical idealism, like what a Freudian psychiatrist might call a massive “super-ego” of moralizing, perfectionist, crippling, paralyzing self-criticism,). The most lasting relief could involve clarity about how such habits have been systematically programmed in to the masses of all modern cultures.

Personal economic stability (“thriving”) could contribute to a relaxing of internalized tensions and chronic pretenses. Pretenses can involve tension.Lasting release of chronic tension can involve a dissolving of unexamined habits of social pretense (such as displayed self-condemnation to present an absence of anxiety by distracting from one’s own hysteria through condemning the hysteria of others).
What is the best way to promote lasting personal economic stability? Condemning the nature of a monetary system tends to correspond with a naïve idealism about“not needing money to thrive.”

Do you need money to survive? Relative to breathing, money is not absolutely required. However, to condemn others for valuing money (and what money can buy)… could be a hysterical loyalty to programmed ideals that serve to emotionally cripple the masses of human resources in regard to how they relate to money and wealth within an empire.

On the other hand, any popular obsession with money as the “ticket to paradise”certainly might be targeted with some skepticism. Hoarding money does not itself produce introspective clarity. However, a steady flow of sufficient passive income might contribute to a relaxing of chronic pretenses and a release of habitual momentums of hysterical self-attack panics.

One can respect the religions of guilt and their mass-marketed curses. One can respect the innovative witchcraft with which the masses are programmed to be paranoid and hysterical about being possessed by demonic entities such as stage3 cancer of the tumor, type 8 hyperglycemic diabetes, possession of the abdominal intestines by bad cholesterol bacteria, uneasy anxiety stressed dis-ease syndrome disorder, delusional naivete, viral hypertension, imaginary hyperventilation, cardiopathic arthritis of the tongue, post-natal hypothyroidism, and of course incurable hypochondria.

One can respect that the masses reliably do worship those demons. That is what they are trained to do through indoctrination systems that disproportionately benefit the medical industry (which is the purpose of all advertising and marketing).

The indoctrination can be very effective. The worship of the selected demons can be wildly popular.

So, perhaps I do not need to bring everyone to paradise for me to experience paradise.That idea could be just part of another religion of crippling guilt.

By the way, paradise is a word that has the same historical roots as the word “park”and the word “garden.” When we talk about the paradise of Eden, the word paradise refers to an area isolated by a boundary, especially a wall. The word paradise,in its ancient form, can be used interchangeably with garden or park or even sanctuary(such as a wildlife sanctuary or a hunting reserve belonging to a local king or warlord).

Do you value lasting relief from the programmed habits of hysterical inattentiveness to language? If so, I know a politician that promises eternal salvation from that terrifying problem for just a modest increase in your tax rate. However,do not be deceived by the hypnotic bait of that political party, for it is the party that has a monopoly on dishonesty.

The only way for you to enter paradise is to participate in a proper ritualc elebrating your Eternal Sovereignty (and your eventual conditional independence from the influence of any empire or organized religion). Fortunately, I was personally authorized to perform that ritual by the God of the Latter-Day Saint Nicolaus of the Virginal Valkyries. Of course, your participation is entirely voluntary and, if you are interested to the point of an agonizing social anxiety, then let me know immediately and we will schedule your very own ritual (in exchange for a small donation in the form of certain evil currencies of certain evil governments). Furthermore, it is my oath-sworn duty to warn you that any failure on your part to submit to the ritual celebration of your Eternal Sovereignty will be used against you in a court of final judgment and damnation, subjecting you to eternal tortures involving repeated verbal condemnation by 666 very self-righteous birds.

language directs the perception of reality

May 4, 2013

a correspondent wrote: Reality is always , without exception , defined by the observer !

JR replied:

What is “beyond” reality? We could say that in language we can categorize physical sensations/perceptions in contrast to labels (like there is the visual perception of the color in the photo above, but we can use several labels, like “pink, fuschia, bright, rosa” and so on- in English or other languages. Those labels are a distinct subset of reality from the other subset called “physical perceptions.” Multiple labels can all refer to the same physical perception.

Euler diagram showing A is a proper subset of ...

Euler diagram showing A is a proper subset of B and conversely B is a proper superset of A (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Only “within language” can we REFER to anything as being “beyond reality” or “unreal.” Such linguistic labels are completely arbitrary. We can say that memories are unreal or that the dream I had last night was unreal. Or, it was a real dream and a real memory- even if the memory was inaccurate or imprecise or imaginative or involved a “creative” reconstruction of the past, rather just raw facts without any filtering and re-organizing through the neurological program of translating some “memory” in to the words of a human language.

Words are not physical perceptions. I cannot talk about a memory without talking. The talking is not the memory.

Whenever we speak of the future, that is an act of creativity. whenever we speak of the past, that is also an act of creativity. In fact, speaking is a creative act.

Marketing professionals and PR propaganda lobbyist teams specifically create perceptions and beliefs in others. Salespeople are trained to do that. Musicians and artists are creating results or stimulating people in specific ways using communications that includes some non-linguistic elements.

So, using language is creative, directing the attention of others, directing the perception of others, directing the experience and behavior of others. Be grateful that you are clear about this… and notice that many are blind (symbolically), though they have eyes that see- and they have ears to hear, but yet they are deaf to the simplest implications of the spiritual poetry of the last several thousand years.

the correspondent replied again:

Hey J.R. , enjoyed your Post !

I like your insight in reagards to ” …only in language can we refer to anything being ” beyond reality ” or ” unreal ” .

What I find most impressive is your correct use of the words ” Real & Unreal ” , the Neo–Advaitists are in the process of destroying these words just as they’ve destroyed the word ” Enlightenment ” . 
Real = means to exist !
Unreal = means not to exist !
Plain and simple !

The words Real & Unreal have nothing whatsoever to do with whether anything is permanent or if it will last forever !

All Blessings

JR replied:

Hi, anyone can use any sequence of letters (any word) as a symbolic code to represent anything they want. In the field of economics, we use the term “real” in contrast to “nominal.” Real means after adjusting for inflation (fluctuations in the purchasing power of a currency), while nominal means “not real.” In other words, “real” means “precise/recalibrated” and nominal means “simple/imprecise/convenient/uncalibrated.” In another country that uses the Spanish language, the “real” (pronounced close to the word ree-al and probably derived from “royal” or “regal”) is the name of the legal currency in that jurisdiction of the “Holy Roman Empire” of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). (And you probably do not know what I mean precisely because of the beliefs that the Jesuits have instilled in you through their systems of mind control AKA public schools and mass media).

Also, I might reply to Matt Kahn, the author of the original quote, that (genetics, epigenetics, and an individual’s) past experience “trains” perception, then current presumptions (in language… AKA beliefs) also “filter perception,” and all language directs perception and organizes it. When we recognize perceptions and expectations (and labels) as just perceptions and expectations (and labels), that does resolve confusion and frustration and so on.

Reality

Reality (Photo credit: Beatnic)

part 2 of 2: Moderation in Zen / Advaita / Jnana Yoga

April 23, 2013
The Compass of Zen

The Compass of Zen (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    wait… re “there are no others” & “all is an illusion”…. these things are just medicine? they are said [in order] to bring us back to the flow. We are the flow and only let thoughts and beliefs that have no basis in truth “take us away” from what is. So medicine to clear the mind? i guess

    kind of like when I smoke it clears the mind?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    “there are no others” can interrupt obsessing over others.

    “all is an illusion” can interrupt most anything

  • Daniel Fritschler

    yes wow thanks again

  • 2:14pm

    English: Sudden Insight

    English: Sudden Insight (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    here are some shapes on a screen

    is this your mind over here on this screen?

    If you type some words that I read, then where is the boundary of my mind?

    I perceive my own mind.

    My own mind is everything that I perceive.

    One myth is that mind is inside of the body

    another myth is that the body is inside of the mind

    Zen

    Zen (Photo credit: Josefe aka Hipnosapo)

    how can that be?

    what if all that is perceived is the mind?

    So, the body can be perceived- which makes is a percevied body or minded body or a body in mind or a body of mind.

    If this screen is “in mind” and this body is “in mind” and even “the enitre solar system” is in mind, then perhaps mind is rather large.

    Daniel Fritschler

    holy shit…sorry speechless over here

    it’s okay.
    it is ok.

    Zen

    Zen (Photo credit: seamlessgem)

    there can be the activity of language “in mind” which says “my mind is just the language that I use over here, which is distinct from the activity of language over there, which is not my mind, but someone else’s.” That is totally legitimate.
    mind is unlimited it is boundless then?
    all perceiving arises within mind
    yes
    Mind is just a verbal category. There is no such thing EXCEPT as a verbal category.
    That is what the Zen masters reference by “no mind.”
    But if there is no mind, then there is also no such thing as the verbal category of “Zen Masters.” Mind is “within” language.
    The presence of the divine being can be speechless or can use words. Mind only arises through language. “You” are the presence beyond language which creates language and uses it.
    “The Divine Being” forms language, which creates “mind” and other verbal categories. Language can also refer to a source beyond language as “The Tao” and so on. Those labels are just labels.
    once mind is divided in to perception through language, then contrasting perceptions (like “body”) can also arise, all well as “my body and your body” or “my mind and your mind.” Those labelings are all “done” by the Divine Being.
    If the Divine Being is speechless, then is it still the divine being?
    yes?
    I am just blown away here
    when there is no one in particular here, then no one cares either way.
    yes
    i am ignorant in some ways apparently
    but then again that isn’t me
    right, “ignorant” is just an identifying. Identifyings come and go.
    yes all of them transient

    zen

    zen (Photo credit: mkebbe)

    if you are the divine being who forms all things through speaking, then which one of your forms is the most permanent?
    which one of your shadows is the real shape of your shadow?
    If a dog is running through a park, which position of the dog as it runs is the real position?
    all of them
    all of them or none of them. All of the positions can argue over which is the most real. All of the forms of Divine Being can compete to be the least transient.
    ahh the agreement of the unagreed
    So then one naturally must ask, of the 50 states in the US, which one is the most real?
    They all exist through the functioning of language.
    They are all equally real. They are all equally false. Anyone can say whatever about them though and they are still just identifyings in language.
    all things remaining equal
    yes
    I just got a phone call.
    2:36pm
    all things remaining equal or moderation in moderation do you enjoy destroying a person’s “truth” because I am enjoying it
    ok later thanks
    truth- but only in moderation!
    🙂  moderation
    Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

    Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Should agonizing be your religion?” – God

April 4, 2013

Should agonizing be your religion?

Titans and other giants are imprisoned in Hell...

Titans and other giants are imprisoned in Hell in this illustration by Gustave Doré of Dante’s Divine Comedy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
Perhaps it seems a bit odd to ask a question like this. Why would anyone ever make a religion out of the practice of agonizing? Religion should promote things like happiness and clarity, right? Agonizing is a way of rejecting happiness and resisting clarity, so why would anyone make a religion out of agonizing?
 
Well, a scientific study with truly shocking implications has been published recently by the Universal Council on Infallible Superstitions. The leading priests of the religion of science dictate that you personally must focus in particular on what should be and you should focus on what should be far more than you focus on what actually is in general. Not only should you focus on what should be as your religion of fanaticism, but you should accept without question whatever models of what should be that are offered to you in your youth through programs of indoctrination and propaganda, such as “mass media” and “public schooling.”
 
For instance, there is universal agreement across all sects of fanaticism that, first, propaganda and indoctrination obviously should not exist (and therefore the most familiar systems of indoctrination must not actually be systems of indoctrination), and second, there obviously should not be so many different models of what should be. The existence of even slight variations in models of what should be not only leads to surprises, but to confusion, then to embarrassment, and then to blame (because confusion and embarrassment must be someone else’s fault rather than the natural result of worshiping an inaccurate model of what should be). From blame, we can quickly go on to resentment, animosity, argumentativeness, envy, contempt, strife, frustration, shame, agonizing, paranoia, hatred, and all of the various hells.


NYC - Brooklyn - Coney Island: Astroland Park ...

NYC – Brooklyn – Coney Island: Astroland Park – Dante’s Inferno (Photo credit: wallyg)

 
So, blame is the gate to all of the various levels of hell. That could be good to know because if that is true then the only way to stop making your own life hell is to cease from the practice of blaming
 
However, one might wonder why anyone would ever enter in to the gates of hell in the first place? Why do people seem to think that blaming others is such a good idea? 
 
We blame others to pretend that our distress is someone else’s fault. In fact, that reflexive activity of the “fight response” can work sometimes. If we want privacy, then blaming others may push them away enough that we can establish privacy and relax from our hysterical panic of idolatrous fanaticism about what should be.
 
Perhaps we have been trying to avoid the purgatory of terrified shame (to avoid humility and vulnerability). We panic in order to escape from purgatory and, in our hysterical panic, we blame others, which plunges us directly in to the depths of hell.
 
Circle 5:Wrath

Circle 5:Wrath (Photo credit: chantel beam photography)

But how does the terrified shame arise (which then naturally leads to someone blaming someone else for being the source of their terrified shame)? Notice that unless there is a presumptive expectation about what should be, there can be no violation of a fanatical model of what should be (a presumptive expectation). If there is no surprising violation of presumptive expectations of what should be (a model of sincere fanaticism), then there is nothing to blame someone else for and no justification to vilify anyone or anything. If there is no terrified rejecting of what is, then there is nothing to panic over by blaming anyone else for doing or failing to do, for producing or failing to produce, for being or failing to be.
So, in order for us to blame or vilify, we must define some specific development (some reality, some pattern of what is) as less important than some linguistic model of what should be that is violated by that particular pattern in reality (racism, saturated fats, war, polygamy, pedophilia, GMOs, government corruption, breastfeeding in public, etc…). We only make denial in to a religion when we have already made our terrified sincerity in to a religion (when our sacred model of what should be is tenaciously and passionately defended as more important than any other possible pattern in reality). In other words, we only blame others in the hysterical defense of our pre-existing idolatry (our worship of a model of what should be).

 

Full of Hell

Full of Hell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

How do we relax our underlying tension? One method involves the linguistic unit of an Almighty, All-inclusive, Eternal Reality. In different languages and traditions, words like “reality” or “God” or “Brahman” or “the universe” may be used. 
 
With this linguistic unit called reality, we create an intellectual concept that is outside of the normal duality of contrasts that we use so often in language. Reality is not an exclusive category. There is nothing else besides reality. It is not in contrast to something else.
 
Reality is all of what is. Every language and every word and every alphabet are part of reality. Presumptive language models about what should be are part of reality. Agonizing about who to blame for confronting me with the naive, arrogant, terrified inaccuracy of my presumptive model of what should be is… also one pattern within reality.
Like it or not, reality includes all of the things that anyone has even been so disturbed by (terrified of) or distressed about (terrified of) or rejected (because of terror) or denied respect for (because of terror) that they passionately and desperately said “that just should not be!” If God is the Almighty Creative Source of all forms and patterns, then rejecting any form or pattern made by God is immature and idolatrous and a symptom of a pre-existing distress or terror. We have been clinging to one possible pattern created by God and rejected other creations of God. We have been claiming to worship an Almighty God, but then selecting some subset of God’s creation and rejecting that part as offensive to us, then blaming it on some devil.
Neptune

Neptune, shown with his magic trident or pitchfork. This ancient archetype is also called “The devil” or “Satan” in Christian mythology (Photo credit: CarbonNYC)

Of course, God created that experience for us, too. Ultimately, the worshiping of a devil as the one to blame for why reality is not how it should be is a projection (symptom) of shame, self-condemnation, self-repression, self-contempt.  If my experience of reality includes things that I allegedly should not experience (because those experiences violate the model of idolatrous fanaticism that I worship instead of worshiping God), then perhaps the problem is me. Perhaps my experience of things that I allegedly should not experience is not evidence that the models of what should be that I have been worshiping are inaccurate or at least slightly imprecise, but evidence that I should not be how I am. I may sincerely say “people should not be ___,” but I am among those people, right? All shaming is a symptom of pre-existing shame.
Shaming is a very popular practice in many religions. Should those people make shaming in to a religion? That question is rather ironic. The idea of shaming the particular forms of shaming that are practiced in other religions (besides my own favorite fanatical reflexes of shaming what disturbs me) is hypocrisy.
Neptune

Neptune (Photo credit: Matthew Sylvester)

So, should agonizing be your religion or not? Should your religion be to agonize over who to blame for the gap between your fanatical ideals of what should be and certain other patterns in reality? Should your religion be to agonize over how to make reality in to how it should be, then preserve it that way and prevent it from ever being how it should not be? Should you dedicate your life to saving some part of reality from all the rest of reality (the shameful parts)?
 
Well, you certainly might have a lot of company if you did that. It can be rather rare to cease from the ritual practice of agonizing. Note that agonizing is not just a habit for many of us, but an actual religious ritual!
 
Now, if you make agonizing in to your religion, then that raises the question of what is exactly the right way to agonize? What should you agonize about most? What should you agonize about first? What should you agonize about hardest? 
 
How will you know when you are agonizing how you should be agonizing and not how you should not be agonizing? What standard or model or fanatical ideal will you worship as a guideline for how to properly agonize your way in to a seemingly inescapable, eternal hell? What form of agonizing can you use to escape from the hell of the religious practice of agonizing? How long will it take? How much will it cost? How reliable is the method?
 
Mooji in New York

Mooji in New York (Photo credit: Loving Earth)

 
Why is hell so much different than it should be? Who is to blame for hell being so much different than it should be? 
 
If I stop worshiping a fanatical ideal of what should be, then is life still hell? If I stop blaming others for the gap between my fanatical ideals and the rest of reality, then what I am going to agonize about? If I have nothing to agonize about, then what would I do? If I have no fanatical ideal of how I should be and how I should not be, then what would I already be?
 
If this is not inherently hell, then what is it? If hell is just the inevitable experiential effect of certain religious rituals involving the worship of idolatrous models of what should be, then if I cease from such idolatry (and from agonizing over how to defend my idolatrous hell from reality), then who will I blame for not rejecting reality any longer? How will I agonize over allowing things to be whatever they are without any condemnation or terror or disturbance or panic?
 
H. W. L. Poonja.

H. W. L. Poonja. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
People should not have fanatical ideals. People should not agonize over how to properly worship the most idealistic ideals and the most fanatical fanaticism and the most naive naivetes and the most sincere sincerities and the most idolatrous idolatries. 
 
In short, people should not be such hypocrites. However, we are all hypocrites. Further, our heretical hypocrisy violates the fact that we should not be hypocrites, and thus only adds to our shameful hypocrisy.
 
By the way, if there is one thing that you should never be, that is obviously that you should never be ashamed. That is just plain wrong. Do not do it. If you ever experience shame, well then you should be ashamed of yourself!
 
Also, you should never panic hysterically. In fact, just to be safe, you probably should never use language at all, for the use of language has been explicitly vilified and forbidden by the Universal Council for Preventing Infallible Superstitions through the use of Reverse Psychology in Propaganda Rituals which either do not exist because they should not exist or should not be perceived as what they are because that would be contrary to the purposes of the Universal Council to Prevent Deception by never deceiving anyone about anything. 
 
Painted Skies- Gals

Painted Skies- Gals (Photo credit: Sonny Poonja)

 
This message has been brought to your by your government (which is obviously not a religion because it hysterically insists that it should not be a religion which conclusively proves that it cannot be). Anyone who disagrees (or even fails to agree passionately enough) will be promptly incarcerated in a mental correctional facility in order, of course, simply to promote their own happiness and best interests, such as by the involuntary provision of large doses of modern pharmaceutical inventions to remedy their severe biochemical deficiency of modern pharmaceutical inventions.
Beware of panicking. Beware of condemning. Beware of agonizing. Beware of shaming. Beware of presumptions. Beware of words.
Beware also of humans. Some of them are so foolish as to believe that they should not be how they are. Well, to put it another way, some of them have been trained to be so terrified that they pretend not to be how they are and pretend to be how they are not. Beware of pretending! 
 
 
 
 

Gandhara Buddha. 1st-2nd century. Musee Guimet...

Gandhara Buddha. 1st-2nd century. Musee Guimet, Paris. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the Advaita of perceiving and identifying

February 27, 2013
Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist’s Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus’ description of himself “I am the Good Shepherd” (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: “To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

“Please explain Reality in simple terms. Is reality is absolute?. Is the perceiver and perceiving different?” – prabhakara Rao Gogineni

 

A tree and a branch of the tree are distinct, but are they “different?” Are they exclusive?

 

Recognize that “the perceiver” is a label in language. All units of language can be perceived, right? Consider that the label “the perceiving” can include “any particular thing perceived” and “any particular thing perceiving.” So, I can say “I claim to be a limited little identity distinct from all else, like limited to the space of this body.” I can also say “I am my entire life, including the present, past and future.”

 

English: Through a distinct process of perceiv...

English: Through a distinct process of perceiving visual form – realization – change, Henck van Dijck invites the viewers to let his works lead their own imaginary lives. Nederlands: Via een denkbeeldig parcours, te weten: beeld-besef-verandering, appeleren de denkbeelden van Henck van Dijck bovenal aan het verbeeldende vermogen van de kijker het beeld een eigen imaginair leven te laten leiden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

So, what can be realized now is that, through the use of language, there a many processes of identifying that are possible. I can identify myself as included in some category in language or excluded from another category. I can say “I am just an isolated perceiver” or I can say “I include the perceiver and the process of perceiving and even all that I perceive. My life is all of that. I am all of that. I am all of my life, including even the future… which is beyond any perceiving that happened so far!”

 

I can also say nothing at all- if only for a moment. When there is no speaking of a process of identification, what am I then? Do I cease to exist? Am I just an invented identity in language? What happens to me when the body sleeps and there is no consciousness of perceiving?

When driving, I say that someone almost “hits me,” but in fact it was not my body that was almost hit, but the back bumper of the 20 foot long truck that I am driving. And it was not “someone” that almost hit the “me” of the bumper on this truck, but another wheeled vehicle. So am I limited to the edge of “my skin?” If someone takes a skin sample of a few dead skin cells and carries the skin cells in to the next room and burns them in to ashes, when do the skin cells stop being me and become “someone else” or “no one at all?” Without language, how can such boundaries be invented or constructed or identified in to being?

 

Could I be deeper than identifying, deeper than any activity of language, deeper even than perceiving? Before there was a learning of language for this organism, like before there was a neurological recognition of spoken sounds and the coded meanings of language, did I exist? Before the development of any human language in prehistoric times, did I exist? Before the arising of humanity, did I exist?

 

Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem

Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

These questions do not make any sense except within the context of language, yet is language something that I do, or is language something that simply arises in to reality, with a recognizing of the activity of language, then perhaps a linguistic identifying of a “me” that is only a momentary exclusive identity: the one that began about one hour ago when a process of perceiving started for a body. But language can also identify a “me” that is a continuous identity that includes “my yesterday,” too. Those are distinct in language, not in direct perceiving.

 

“I am the eternal perceiving which has no name and has no beginning.” That linguistic identifying is also something that “language can do.” Through language, an identity is invented through a lingusitic process of identifying as some “this” which is “not that,” an isolating in language or excluding through language.

 

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, a...

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, argument, ratio, etc.” Deutsch: Das berühmte griechische Wort logos — „Wort, Rede, Argument, Berechnung usw.“ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

If language pauses identifying, there is no identifying of “me,” for identifying requires language. However, language can say “but language [The Logos, The Word] existed prior to identifying and identifying was with language and identifying was language.” Identifying is another way of labeling “I am.” So, there is the “uncorrupted” meaning of the first statement in the Christian New Testament (John 1:1).

 

A sequence of language can be translated- sometimes rather clumsily.  However, language is still present. Without the presence of language, there is no dividing of the heaven from the earth, the day from the night, the good form the evil, the light from the darkness.

 

Beware of getting caught up in the tree of the knowledge of contrasting categories (such as “good and evil‘). Both good and evil are just branches of the same tree: the tree of all life (all linguistic subcategorizing of life in to distinct, isolated branches of good or evil, me or not me, past or future, and so on).

 

There is tremendous foolishness and imprecision and presumption that can be experienced when language is “stuck” in the duality or divisiveness of contrasting labels. Language can agonize over “but am I a human or a mammal or an American, because I cannot be all three, of course, right?”

 

Tree

Tree (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

 

Well, actually it is possible for language to invent an infinite number of identifications, all of which are symbolic partners upon a tree with many branches, or within a mansion that has many rooms. These are the ancient teachings of the Hebrew tradition, some of which were apparently repeated by Jesus as he quoted prior prophets like Isaiah. “I did not come to reject the prior prophets, but to develop further what my Father (Creator, Source) began with them and continues with me.”

 

What is the Father? Is it language, or did language arise from it?

 

“I abide within my Father and my Father abides within me…. You are like a branch of the vine of I AM, with the branch of linguistic identifying abiding in you and you abiding in it….  Before Abraham was, I AM!”

 

The Biblical Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew Name f...

The Biblical Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew Name for God the Father. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Language [The Logos, The Word] existed prior to identifying and identifying was with language and identifying was language. Does perceiving exist independent of language? Is language perceived, and if language is perceived, then language cannot be the perceiver, right?

 

Language is secondary to the perceiving. However, without language and symbolic, poetic labels, there is really nothing much that anyone can say about the perceiving which is distinct from the activity of language. Indeed without a specific activity of language to identify, to label,  to invent a someone in to being, there is no one.

 

English: The Earth's atmosphere refracts the s...

English: The Earth’s atmosphere refracts the sunlight, causing the sun’s disk to appear squashed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The linguistic, poetic, symbolic creation of an isolated someone are like branches which are secondary to both the trunk of language and the root of that trunk, which language can identify as “perceiving” or “absolute, unlabeled reality” or “God” or whatever. In a moment, when the activity of language eventually ceases, does perceiving also stop? Does the root of the tree continue to live even when it is winter time and there a no leaves on the tree? Does perceiving continue to operate whether or not the activity of language is happening?

 

English: Eliezer Ben-Yehuda עברית: אליעזר בן-יהודה

English: Eliezer Ben-Yehuda עברית: אליעזר בן-יהודה (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

What is “enlightenment?”

November 30, 2012

What is “enlightenment?”

Here is the perceiving of sensations and labels. Through the senses, here is the visual perceiving of shapes and colors, or the perceiving of sounds or smells and so on. Through the intellect, here also is the perceiving of language, of labels, of ideas, of identities, of titles, of categories.

What is reality? Reality is the perceiving itself as well as the perceived sensations… as well as the perceived labels, such as “me” and “my history” and “my future.”

The Age of Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment (Photo credit: randomwire)

What is enlightenment? Enlightenment is simpler than words, so it may be strange to try to put enlightenment in to words. No description of enlightenment is to be confused with enlightenment itself. By the way, to be clear that no description of enlightenment is itself enlightenment is… enlightenment!

We could even define enlightenment as the “activity” of simply being as the process of perceiving (without requiring some exclusive identifying as some concept of some other self besides the perceiving itself). Enlightenment is to merely be the perceiving as the process of perceiving that the perceiving is itself real (that the perceiving is “a reality”).

There can be identifying in language with a particular label or not. That is entirely incidental and trivial to the direct perceiving of the absolute reality of the perceiving itself. Why? Enlightenment includes clarity that all labels are all just labels.

Dante And Virgil In Hell by William-Adolphe Bo...

Dante And Virgil In Hell by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1850) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hell (or “samsara“) is  label for the perceiving of labels about the perceiving as more real than the perceiving itself. However, “more real” is just a silly label. There is nothing more real than the perceiving itself. Indeed, there is nothing but reality.

What is before reality? Reality is eternal.

What is beyond reality? Reality is everywhere, omnipresent.

What creates reality, influencing it? Reality is almighty, omnipotent. There is simply no power outside of reality.


Enlightenment is to be the perceiving as the process of perceiving the perceiving as the reality which is eternal, omnipresent, and almighty. Hell or samsara is the perceiving of labels about the perceiving as more real than the perceiving itself, which may lead to the ridiculous theatre of trying to eventually connect with the reality which is already omnipresent and eternal.

In hell, there may be words about reconnecting with the eternal, omnipotent reality… but only after a long ritual process of preparation- or of trying to reach the reality which is always omnipresent- which is referenced as if it is only available in some particular holy building or through a specific holy pilgrimage or the special holy spot on some magic carpet or holy rug. Or, maybe heaven is claimed to be distant and that it can be reached only after one gets the right relationship or the right job or the right ring.

Perceptions

Perceptions (Photo credit: DanRhett)

Yama's Court and Hell. The Blue figure is Yama...

Yama’s Court and Hell. The Blue figure is Yama with Yami and Chitragupta, 17th century Painting (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the psychological pattern called Hell, a devil may be blamed for betraying me such that I allege that I am unjustly trapped in the one place where even the almighty simply cannot save me. The devil is the reason that I use to explain that some detail of my life “is worse than hell! I do not deserve this! I should not even be here! I should be somewhere much better than this! It is the fault not of me but of…” the devil.

Hell is blame. Hell is resentment. Hell is jealousy. Hell is contempt, including contempt for things like gratitude. Hell is shaming reality, then usually blaming someone else for why reality is “obviously how it should not be” (or blaming some group- whatever).

<video 3>

The idea of a devil creates hell and perpetuates it. However, even that idea of a devil can be perceived. What I am is the one who can perceive that idea of a devil. I can perceive hell- as being a metaphorical reality. I can even forgive whatever or whomever I have been condemning as my devil.

What is the key to forgiving the devil? Recognize that “devil” is just a way to label something, a way to relate to it. So is the label “hell.”

Hell

Hell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you want to know how to realize that you are already in heaven? If so, then go to hell. It is easiest to find heaven in hell. In fact, that may be the only way to find heaven.

Hell is the perfect pathway for recognizing that there is nowhere outside of reality, nothing that is not already what it should be, nowhere beyond the reality of heaven. Likewise, there is no time that is outside of what is eternal, so waiting for heaven is postponing the recognition of it. There is no power that can conflict with that which is almighty, so there is no way to struggle one’s way in to heaven. The way to heaven is to recognize that making life hell is entirely optional- and then simply stop making life hell by blaming a devil.


If God is almighty, then even the devil is unable to do anything except for the Will of God. However, the devil is the one who is ashamed of God and God’s Will. A devil labels others as devils. (If you label others as the devil, that means you.)

A devil also denies that what the devil does is actually entirely the doing of God. The devil claims “I am not God but instead I am my idea of myself- not the eternal perceiving- but just a concept that I have of who I am and, furthermore, I am more powerful than the almighty (or at least I should be and so I try to prove that I am more powerful than the Almighty to everyone whose attention I can attract).”

<video 4>

That is all a joke from the beginning. The joke is taken seriously by the one who claims to be in hell. By the way, hell is just one of the regions of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is omnipresent, boundless, everywhere. In hell, there is much talk about getting to heaven eventually- after a few magic tricks or the right rituals and so on- for there is the absence of the perceiving of all of reality as equally real already.

“I know how reality should be,” says the Devil ,who claims to be very humble- ironically emphasizing their great humility and even their total absence of arrogance. “No, I am not at all arrogant- not me! I simply know what parts of reality should not be. I have faith in my ideals about reality and God and so on. I know that they are right. I know that all other ideals are wrong. Just ask me and I will tell you! My ideals are the most real- the least idealistic of all idealisms, the least idolatrous of all idolatries. My ideals are the most sacred because they are real ideals, while other ideals are just superstitions and foolishness and insanity. My ideals are clearly the most holy. I insist that God agrees with me because I deny that God is within me, operating as me. I am God’s favorite. I am God’s chosen. I earned it. I alone have authority to speak for God.”

Which branch of a tree can claim to be the most real branch, the most authoritative branch, the most branchy branch? Well, if you perceive that a branch on a tree is talking to you in some human language, then there may be a bit of inaccuracy in your perceiving. Maybe it is just another dream or hallucination.

All perceiving involves different levels of accuracy or precision. Relative precision and imprecision are the nature of all of  the perceivings of sensations and also of all of the labelings of patterns of sensation. Labels are only as precise as they are- like “summertime” or “sometime in early summer” or “sometime at night on the summer solstice” or “at the exact moment of midnight on summer solstice.” But halfway around the planet, some idiotic, arrogant devil is probably claiming that what you are calling summer solstice is really winter solstice (and not even close to midnight!), and they may even want to argue with you about how you are obviously so wrong.

English: Seven Hells as depicted in Jain Cosmo...

English: Seven Hells as depicted in Jain Cosmology. Picture taken from 1613 CE cloth painting from Jain temple in Gujarat. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

<video 5>

So, what is enlightenment? “So what” is enlightenment!

Or, enlightenment is to be the perceiving of reality… as the actual process of perceiving the reality of the perceiving. The perceiving simply is reality!

In contrast to enlightenment or heaven or nirvana, hell or samsara is an innocent misinterpretation about the nature of language. Hell is the misperception that labels about perceiving are more real than the perceiving itself, which is actually what we are eternally, already, now and always. We are not the labels that we use. We are the one that creates labels, that give out names and use words of linguistic symbolism to categorize patterns of sensation, like dark and light, and to categorize patterns of experience, such as Hell and Heaven and The Devil and The Savior and The Almighty and… Enlightenment.

ADVAITA: Left, Write, or Wrong

November 22, 2012

Left, Write, or Wrong (On “getting back to a brand new reality”)

Now, in the beginning, life is already here. Reality is already here, too, right?

Is that absolutely certain? Is there any doubt whatsoever that reality is already here?

How much does reality include? Is there anything whatsoever that reality excludes?

If reality includes everything already, then there is never any real issue of getting back to reality for reality already includes everything and so there is nothing else but reality that could ever get back to reality. Because there is nothing but reality, there is nothing else isolated from it to connect to it. The whole idea of getting back to reality is just a joke from the beginning.

my tree at dusk

my tree at dusk (Photo credit: joiseyshowaa)

So, there is also no protection from reality and nothing else besides reality to protect from it. There is absolutely no escape from reality for there is nothing but reality which could escape from it.

However, reality has a variety of aspects, many qualities, infinite patterns. Reality includes all perceptions. Reality includes all. There is simply nothing but reality.

Next, because there is no way to get back to reality, there is no issue of how to find some way to get back to reality. There is also no issue of how to find the right leader who knows the right way to lead an isolated identity back to a distant reality.

All of that is merely foolish language. In fact, even foolish language is already part of reality.

Tree recreated in LOGO programming language us...

Tree recreated in LOGO programming language using recursion. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, this is already the perceiving of life. Life is perceiving now. What does life perceive? The activity of language may be perceived by life.

Language comes and goes. In contrast, the perceiving of life is eternal. The perceiving of life includes the perceiving of the creating of language by life. When life creates with language, the created language is not the absence of life, nor a new reality. Creations in language are just new combinations within eternal reality, like new positions of a dancer or new shapes of a cloud.

Language does not prevent reality or escape reality or stop reality or start reality, but silly ideas like those can be formed with language by reality. Language can even deny the existence of language (or of reality). Only within language is denial possible. In fact, the repeated use of the same language allows for denying something very obvious even for extended periods of time (as long as that particular denial is frequently renewed/ rehearsed).

[denial]

[denial] (Photo credit: Shovelling Son)

After some activity of language ceases, there is still the perceiving of life which notices the contrast between the activity of language and the absence of the activity of language. In the absence of the activity of language, the perceiving of life is always eternally present still.

Reality can construct patterns of language which divide reality in to life and lifelessness, but those are fundamentally just categories in language. The isolating of reality in to contrasting aspects, such as swiftly changing and slowly changing, is merely a linguistic isolating.

A linguistic dimension can be created, such as the dimension of the speed of change. That dimension can be divided in to two subdivisions, such as swiftly changing and slowly changing. However, there is no barrier between those two linguistic categories except in language. The words “slowly and swiftly” are just two contrasting boundaries in language with no precise border.

What if we divide reality in to not two but three categories like this: inanimate objects, slowly animating plants, and swiftly animating animals? Are these three linguistic categories only divided from each other in language or are they isolated realities that are pre-existing, distinct, and fundamentally disconnected? Consider that there is always only one reality.

Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", Darw...

Ernst Haeckel’s “tree of life”, Darwin’s metaphorical description of the pattern of universal common descent made literal by his greatest popularizer in the German scientific world. This is the English version of Ernst Haeckel’s tree from the The Evolution of Man (Published 1879), one of several depictions of a tree of life by Haeckel. “Man” is at the crown of the tree; for Haeckel, as for many early evolutionists, humans were considered the pinnacle of evolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, language can be used to divide reality in to any number of categories: 2, 3, 4, or 400. Reality is still fundamentally all-inclusive, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, almighty.

Language can be used to divide life in to any number of subcategories: 2, 3, 4, or 400. Life is still fundamentally all-inclusive, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, almighty.

A single tree may have many branches but it is still a single tree. The kingdom of reality is like that (also known as the kingdom of heaven or of god or the knowledge of the tree of life).

Meeting-Place of-Lords-Nityananda-Gauranga-Adv...

Meeting-Place of-Lords-Nityananda-Gauranga-Advaita-Shantipur (Photo credit: Swami Gaurangapada)

Reality can form patterns in language like “reconnecting the branch to the tree,” but that is a foolish joke from the beginning. “Getting back to reality” is also a foolish joke from the beginning. “The rebirth of the dead” is another foolish joke.

What does “foolish joke” mean? It means a construction in language. It means some pattern of language within reality.

Mayan Language Tree

Mayan Language Tree (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language includes many patterns that are not foolish jokes, but what if all foolish jokes are just a bunch of language? What if “getting back to reality” is just a pattern in language? What if all patterns in language are just a bunch of real patterns in language?

Should you get back to reality as soon as possible, or should you wait for a while? Should you get back to reality the right way or should you find out for yourself that going to the left is not right but actually is totally wrong?

Which pattern of reality is the most real? Which pattern of language is the most alive? Which pattern is the most patterned?

Knowledge, observation and reality

Knowledge, observation and reality (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How can we get back to a brand new reality? How can we fix reality so that it is no longer how it should not be? How can we prevent reality from changing from what it should be in to something else? How can we fundamentally alter reality so that there is no longer any such thing as foolish patterns of language? How many realities actually exist: 2, 3, 4, or 400?

How can we make our lives how they really should be? How can we prevent them from staying how they clearly should have never been in the first place?

Whose fault is it that reality is not always how I was trained to expect that reality would not be? What hero or savior can make reality right instead of left, or on instead of off, or in rather than out? If we have already divided reality in to writers and non-writers, and then next we isolate all of the type writers from the fiction writers, plus all of the right writers from the left writers, isn’t every left writer wrong?

(This teaching goes by many names in many languages. It in Sanskrit is called “advaita.”)

An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philos...

An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Only one reality?

September 9, 2012
The title page to the 1611 first edition of th...

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To the one who has been struggling with words:

Now, reality is here. Reality includes these words.

If even words are reality, then could there be anything outside of reality? Is there ever anything beyond reality?

Words can focus on different features of reality, such as sound as distinct from light. Light can be contrasted with the relative absence of light, labeled “dark.” However, there is no tangible physical substance as darkness.

So, it is said that light casts out darkness, but that darkness has no power over light. In other words, one cannot add two measures of darkness to a bright room and cause the room to dim.

However, one can add two measures of black paint to some white paint and make dark gray paint. So, black paint is a physical substance that absorbs light rather than reflecting it. Still, there is no actual physical darkness in black paint for there is no such substance as a darkness (except as a label in language).

Light exists independently of humans or human languages. Reality created light without any speaking in the normal human sense of the word speaking. In contrast, reality did not create darkness, except as a label.

Reality might declare “let there be darkness,” but only as a label, not as a substance. Darkness is just a label.

Light, as subtle as it is, is clearly tangible. Even blind people agree that direct sunlight can cause an immediate sensation of warmth and eventually even cause sunburn, right? However, darkness cannot cause anything because it does not exist outside of language.

Similar to physical sunlight, clarity can cast out confusion, but confusion cannot effect clarity. So, if one is confused about a subject, then that is a clear, logical sign that one may have never been clear about the subject, though perhaps presuming understanding and even claiming it, or further defending the claim aggressively, argumentatively, anxiously, desperately, even shamefully.
What we talking about here is called logic, which could be defined as the study of the particular portion of reality known as language and labels. We could also call this exploration by other labels like metaphysics or spirituality. Here is a rather simple presentation of an obvious conclusion that we can make using logic (using language):

The word dark is a descriptive word, called a modifier or adjective. The word darkness was eventually formed from out of the word dark.

Outside of language, there is no tangible, physical reality of darkness. Darkness is only a label. Darkness has no influence on light because there is no reality to darkness except as a label.

Likewise, sound can be contrasted with silence, but silence is just a label. There is no such thing as silence to be added to sound to make the sound quieter.

Light and sound and even hair are real and tangible whether they have been named or not. In contrast, darkness and silence and baldness are just linguistic labels. Labels in language are part of reality, but they are distinct from other facets of reality, such as tangible, physical experience.

So, words can be used to contrast and isolate particular qualities, such as weight and height, but language does not divide reality in to isolated realities. Height and weight are just distinct dimensions within the same universal reality. There is only one reality.

Nothing is more real than reality. Nothing is more powerful than reality. Nothing is more than reality.

Reality alone is fit to label as unitary, singular, complete, inclusive, boundless, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, or holy. Only reality is holy.

Thou shalt hold no reality as more holy than reality itself. There is no reality but reality.

The Prophets of reality that have been celebrated throughout history include Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, and Brahman (AKA Abraham or Ibrahim). The idea that reality has only one prophet is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of reality. There is only one reality, but there are many Prophets of reality.

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, a...

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, argument, ratio, etc.” — as SVG image. I don’t know if someone still needs such graphics in the times of Unicode, but if you like to use it here it is … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the subject of Prophets, let’s review the basics of spirituality. Here is the essence of spirituality:

In the beginning, the words of language are already present. Language is reality, is in reality, and is of reality.

Here are some examples of language, which may not be familiar shapes to you:

Hebrew:
בראשית היה הדבר והדבר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה הדבר׃

Aramaic:
ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܀

If any of this seems familiar, we might review a few of the most famous words in human history. From the most famous book in the world today, the Christian Scripture of the New Testament of the Bible, we begin with the verse of John 1:1. Note that the words below are four translations in to the English language of an older language.


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version (©2008)
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation (©2007)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
In the origin, The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

The last one may be the least familiar. It is the most recent translation (from 2010).

I already showed you the verse in Aramaic, but you may not have known what it said, so here it is again:

ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܀
So, if you do not know Aramaic, but you do know English, then you might focus on one of the above English translations of John 1:1. The first three translations are not directly translated from Aramaic in to English, but were first translated from Aramaic in to other intermediary languages, such as:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

في البدء كان الكلمة والكلمة كان عند الله وكان الكلمة الله.

太 初 有 道 , 道 与 神 同 在 , 道 就 是 神 。

В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Бог.

En el principio ya era la Palabra, y aquel que es la Palabra era con el Dios, y la Palabra era Dios.

So, which would logically be more authoritative: the author commenting on the author’s own words, or someone else who claims to only be translating the prior translation of someone who claims to have at least some comprehension of what the original author meant? Let’s compare the 2010 direct translation from ancient Aramaic in to English with some words you already read, and then consider which is clear and simple and which is more obscure and mysterious:


In the origin, The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.


In the beginning, the words of language are already present. Language is reality, is in reality, and is of reality.

Things brings us to focus on a particular word, which is one small word among many similar words in various languages. There is only one reality, but there are many words or labels for various aspects of reality, right?

הדבר

What does that word mean (the same word written above in a few slightly different alphabets or scripts)? Is it similar to the English word “reality?” We may know of the phrase “I am that which is” (as in “I am reality”) or “I am That I am:”

These words and ideas go back many thousands of years to the Vedic traditions and Hebrew traditions (which may have derived from the Vedic: “I am. I am That. Brahman alone exists.”). Prior to written language, there were oral traditions of teachings about these principles of language and simple logic.

Also, before there were any formal traditions, there have been words for “reality.” Among these words are God, Divinity, Allah, Brahman, the Universe, and הדבר. However, before any of these words, even before any languages or humans, there was already reality, right?

Which came first: reality itself or language to label reality? We can use logic to reach a satisfactory conclusion to that question, right?

Michelangelo-adam-version-hikingArtist illustr...

Michelangelo-adam-version-hikingArtist illustration (Photo credit: HikingArtist.com)

Reality created humanity. Humanity is a form of reality or a facet of reality.

When reality created humanity, reality created humanity in the image of reality (or as an expression of reality). Reality is holy and all the forms that reality takes are holy. The aspect of reality known as humanity is also holy, perfect, and pure, just as the Reality from which humanity arises is holy, perfect, and pure.

Recognizing reality is considered to be of great importance. Many traditions have directed humans to “seek first” the direct experience of reality, with promises of great benefits to follow.

However, all experience is already reality, right? So, the issue then is not experiencing reality, which is the only thing we can experience because reality is what we are. The issue, if there is any, is being clear about reality.

Reality is like a huge house with many rooms. The rooms have different names and may seem isolated from each other, but all of the rooms in reality are in reality, are reality.

Reality is also like a tree with many branches. Each branch of the tree is the tree. There is no part of the tree that is not the tree. The tree abides in the branch and the branch abides in the tree. The words “tree” and “branch” refer to different aspects of the same thing, and that “one thing” is reality.

Reality abides in me and I abide in reality. Reality is in me and I am in reality. I am reality.

The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection)

The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language isolates different qualities of reality from other qualities. However, language does not isolate one reality from the rest of reality, creating two realities. However, language allows for exclusive communication, since only humans can understand the complex formations of language.

Further, different groups of humans use the coded sounds of language in different ways. Some even use written shapes to represent the formations of spoken language.

Some of the uses of language are so distinct from each other that language divides them in to different dialects and languages and language groups. However, all languages are language just like all branches of a tree are the tree.

So, when an oral tradition is written down, does it gain authority or lose authority? Does the authority of God derive from writing down some words or from the words themselves?

Who has more authority: God, the Prophets of God, or those who translate the words of the Prophets of God? Does a religious tradition gain authority through being translated and then having the translation translated again in to English? If you only comprehend English, then words in English certainly are the most useful kind to you, but if you are clear directly about reality, then will any words about reality confuse you or cause you any anxiety?
If you know from personal experience that sunlight can cause temporary blindness, then does it trouble you if someone does not believe the same or even argues against it? When something is clear to you, there is no argument about with translation is best. You can tell a decent translation from a confused translation, but there is no concern with getting other people to approve of something that is very clear to you, like feeling sad that other people do not explicitly agree with you that sunlight can cause temporary blindness. That would be just a social anxiety, which is quite distinct from the actual reality of blinding sunlight.

Those who have the faith that comes from direct experience cannot be blinded. In contrast, those who insist on particular constructions in language are already blind. They believe in mere words, they repeat mere words, they worship mere words, but they are not clear about the reality to which the words point. Which is more important: the particular words or that to which the words point?

Does reality require language to be real? Does logic even require language to be valid?

Can one make logical deductions silently- even monkeys and dogs and rats use logic to achieve their purposes, like going around barriers, right? Haven’t you ever seen a cat measuring for a jump between one perch and another? That is logic!
So, which language is the most real? Which branch of a tree has exclusive claim to speak for the whole tree?

These are silly questions. However, to share these silly questions may result in a wide variety of reactions. Some may be offended and outraged by these questions. Logic may seem very threatening to fools, so be aware that reality includes both fools and sages.

Sages do not expect everyone to comprehend logic. Sages do not expect everyone to comprehend English or any particular language.

The one who is clear about reality may be very rare. The one who is clear about reality (including the reality of language) may also be very quiet.

If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself?

If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself? (Photo credit: Zombie Inc. Wholesale Zombies for Over 25 years)

Those who speak with great anxiety, desperation, and animosity about anything may be quite ashamed of some aspect of reality. However, if there is a purpose for every possibility within reality, then there is a time for calm and a time for anxiety, a time for cooperation and a time for animosity, a time for promoting clarity about language and a time for obscuring the reality of language through institutions of churches, public schools, mass media, and so on.

So, the sage does not crave to disturb those who are easily ashamed (who deny their confusion). The sage does not need their approval and does not get frustrated struggling to make them clear. The sage is simply clear.

English: Icon showing the Resurrection of Jesu...

English: Icon showing the Resurrection of Jesus, at the inner side of the Resurrection Gate to the Red Square, Moscow (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Be selective as to how you share this language. Be cautious in choosing with whom to share it.

For those who fear reality, they may not recognize yet that shame is the fearing of the reality that they are. They may be hesitant to reveal their reality, their authority, their divinity, to explore the logic of language fully.

They may be ashamed of reality. They may be afraid of the revealing of reality. They may resist it and fight against it and condemn it and persecute it. They may struggle with words and logic and reality, even though they are themselves entirely composed of reality.

Those who have contempt for churches do not understand churches. Churches are simply systems for organizing attention, perception, and behavior. Churches identify some doctrines in language and then indoctrinate that language. That is just what they do. Realize the reality of churches.

Churches are not systems for promoting the development of logic and language and intelligence, or might not be. Even university institutions have institutional interests that promote certain kinds of activities and discourage or punish others. If you want the full benefit of introspection, studying scriptures or going to lectures will only be a stage in the process.

Beware of those who display a contempt for any of reality. They may be ashamed. They may be terrified.

Respect them as one possible portion of reality. Withdraw from what is repulsive and focus on what is attractive.

Recognize loud opinions as loud opinions. Recognize quiet wisdom as quiet wisdom. There is a time for being loud and a time for being quiet.

 

The above is an expansion on this prior post/video:

http://wp.me/punib-2mr https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/many-words-but-onlyone-reality/

The word "shlama" (peace) in Aramaic...

The word “shlama” (peace) in Aramaic round (Syriac) and square (Hebrew) script (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

expectations, frustrations, and relief

August 18, 2012
Perception

Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

We begin with perceptions, then we naturally presume that our perceptions are not only accurate, but lastingly accurate. In other words, we make our perceptions in to presumptions and then in to expectations.

Eventually, we may notice that at least a few of these old perceptions, presumptions, and expectations do not match with our new experiences. We may find this confusing, frustrating, frightening, disappointing, infuriating, or even shameful. We may resist admitting to ourselves or to others that our expectations did not fit reality, that our presumptions do not fit reality, and that our perceptions may not have precisely fit the rest of reality- or only somewhat precisely. We may blame others for the gap between our expectations about our experience and our actual experience. We may deny our naivete arrogantly, then blame others for exposing our naivete, attacking them.

We may favor our expectations over the rest of reality, elevating the reality of our expectations in to an arrogant ideal to which we may then struggle to make the rest of reality conform, or at least appear to conform. <start video 2 below>We may make some of reality or even most of reality in to a problem and then try to fix our own problem with reality so that the unexpected, embarrassing details of reality may eventually conform with our sacred idolatries of expectations (or at least appear to do so).

Also, we may be very interested in other people’s perceptions, misperceptions, or lack of perception. We may be very interested in other people presumptions and expectations. We may want them to have the same expectations and presumptions and perceptions that we have. We may fear the unfamiliar. We may fear reality.

We may worship our expectations or ideals. We may reject and condemn some of reality or even most of it. We may ridicule others who dare to suggest that reality may not precisely conform with whatever idealistic expectations we worship. We may even attack them with antagonism (as distinct from attacking them without antagonism).

We may not admit that our expectations are just that. We may call them “how things really should be” or “how life is supposed to be” rather than “how I have been trained to suppose or presume that life might be, perhaps.”

We may engage in antagonistic debates and withdraw in resentment that someone did not agree with our exact set of expectations. We may split our religious traditions and political parties in to smaller sects and partisan interest groups. Of course, we can form small groups to promote a particular set of perceptions, but that does not require the angst and antagonism and contempt and resentment that is so typical of splintering groups of “true believers.”

We may adopt a persona that is a set of pretenses designed to conform to what we expect people to expect of us. Of all of our ideals and idolatries, “how I really am and how I am not” may be the most intense and cherished. “How we really are” is a similar ideal. We may also create scapegoats and enemies whom we accuse of being how no one should be (how we probably also claim not to be, even if we know that we may be pretending, struggling to manage other people’s perceptions of us).

“Look at those evil ones. Do not look at me!”

We may resist waking up. We may resist coming to consciousness. We may resist perceiving reality. We may resist courage in favor of fear and frustration. We may very fiercely deny it.

reality

reality (Photo credit: Loulair Harton)


%d bloggers like this: