Posts Tagged ‘zen’

the Zen / Advaita / Jnana Yoga of clarity about grief and grievances

April 26, 2013
  • Today
  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok I see now why you keep saying I am going to blame you or anybody else as I sit here and pretend like it is another’s fault that I believed in lies when obviously it is no one’s fault…. it just happened that way….sensei is that where you are trying to take me?

    Mooji & Brahma

    Mooji & Brahma (Photo credit: Loving Earth)

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Yes, something simply happened by itself. You learned to expect certain outcomes. You learned to resist simply accepting “what is” and reject it as “what should not be.” You learned to blame others for “what should not be” as a projection of shame, as a coping mechanism of terror. Then, you learned to internalize guilt for “what should be.”

  • Oops- what should NOT be.

    See what you just made me do?

    You embarrassed me! I am a very detail-oriented typist, but then you came Along and caused me to do what I should NOT have done.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha yes yes I get it and I am sorry I have all the power over you

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    This is not how it should be and you need to make it up to me for me doing what I should not have done (since it was your fault).

    [As for your apology,] You are just saying that.  You do not really mean it.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I will make it up by sending you some butt gin??? Whatever that is

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You don’t even understand me at all, do you?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    yes I do his dudeness sensei master

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I try to be a good snobby sensei and show people the truth but you are just ugh such a dimwit. I am going to give up.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha oh come on mr miagi or however you spell it but danielson or the karate kid is fighting through his dimwit and he “believes” in you….wax on wack off or something like that

    If you have ever seen the karate kid….if not I absolutely believe that you have already proved you can show me ignorance….my own

    Actually I suppose it isn’t mine but a thought believed nonetheless

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You have learned nothing useful. You do not even properly appreciate me and my sincerity. I am really frustrated trying to show you how you are not how you should be.

    For instance, you do not even know how to shame right!

    Osho („Rajneesh“ Chandra Mohan Jain)

    Osho („Rajneesh“ Chandra Mohan Jain) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha yes sensei I bow to you and your sincerity

    Teach me how to shame oh great one

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    It is embarrassing to me. I cannot take any more of this.

    No, your ability to shame other people for not being how they should be is grossly inadequate.

    You are letting humility and compassion for others sneak in and it just does not work that way.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes well maybe I should work on that instead of being like I should be, you think? I know stupid fucking humility and compassion… just hateful qualities anyway….I quit

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Wait no don’t quit. You must not do that! Have hope, danielson!

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Can I wax off now master

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Think of how great it will be when you are so good at gaming other that you qualify to get in to heaven. Santa will give you more toys too.

    Damn it!

    You made me type wrong again, you pest.

    Not gaming others- shaming others.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Can I get 40 virgins too. And haha you suck at all this typing stuff

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    But I am really trying to type correctly. No one ever appreciates that. For instance, I do not appreciate me ever and…

    Wait… Is that why you have been tricking me in to learning all along?

    Not why- WHAT… DAMIT! This typist sucks- or maybe it is the keyboard….

    Anyway, don’t give me that attitude about my typing errors. You knew what I meant (if you are as smart as you seem to think thra you re).

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Come on sensai there Is nothing to learn. Once all is unlearned just being is all that is left. And of course I am “as smart” as you think I am. I am a total idiot but I know that

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Do you really believe that 40 virgins crap? You are such a schmuck. They are GAMING you. You should be ashamed!

    But that would be cool if it was true, wouldn’t it?

    Osho Rajneesh Drive-by in Rajneeshpuram

    Osho Rajneesh Drive-by in Rajneeshpuram (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I am being GAMED in my own SHAME…I believe it all and you are a douchebag that is belief number 1

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Anyway, who is the one that applies labels like “total idiot?” That is what you need to learn to unlearn. So, You should check out my main man “mooji.” He talks about all that stuff. It will be the solution to all of the problems that you make up about how the world should be problem-free.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Mooji will fix your rude attitude too.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I love mooji but maybe I need to continue to let the words resonate. Well why is it so rude though?

    Because belief is still there that I am a victim or that I have been had?

    Yes I agree but I see that now

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Anyway, No, don’t send me the butt gin. You clearly need it more than I do.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok my friend I agree, I need all of the butt gin I can get. Ass holes need such things I suppose

    Or just the impliers need the escape from the implying.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    In conclusion…

    The energy required to resist grief / grieving can be enormous. Eventually, the grief can arise and relax and bring huge relief. Do not grieve for “what should not have been.” Be thankful for the suppressing function of grief. It is also called humility / humiliation.

    Projected grief is grievance (blame, resentment, rage, frustration). Inward projection of grievance is shame / depression. It functions like a braking mechanism (a very reclusive, anti-social activity). Cool, huh?

    The one who is grateful for fear and shame and grief is an emotional sensei.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I am starting to see that although clearly often I do not see that and yes its cool once it is clearly seen, when the bullshit that is believed gets out of the way…

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    that suppressive “buillshit” has a very important function… temporarily.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes it is also the purpose for the medicine you mentioned yesterday. [Statements like] “All is an illusion” “there is no other” and all of that is used to train or discipline the mind until he(it) comes). Jesus said “occupy until I come” of course it isn’t a body that is coming…. he was speaking of clarity or JR Fibonacci Hunn

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Blasphemer!

    Daniel Fritschler

    Buddha

    Buddha (Photo credit: anantal)

    Sorry to shame you again by comparing you to a 2000 year old corpse but I am calling it as I see it…

Part 1 of 2: FRUSTRATION, resignation, and Zen / Adavita / Jnana Yoga

April 23, 2013
SB said of the following content:
“Hats off to both of you. Daniel was incredibly brave and JR was incredibly thoughtful.”
English: Kevala Jnana of Mahavira

English: Kevala Jnana of Mahavira (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Daniel Fritschler
Another day and another dollar…oh well when you are a misunderstood dimwitted prick like me what else to do? It isn’t as though love is an option so might as well continue on the path to hate and say all of the ignorant things so I can keep my perfect record going. Point is I will never understand anything it is all so tricky and to be a dimwit I might as well continue to speak with a forked tongue…what fun would it be to be in a place “beyond” wrong and right doing. What fun would it be to be in a place “beyond” choosing a side and then trying to make everybody else agree with me? What fun would it be to understand that love and joy are conditionless and as soon as we put conditions on life we have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I am evil…I am good…I am indifferent or I am what I am. Does it even matter really?

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn Well, “if it is alright with you,” then resignation is certainly an option. Do you any more detail to share in public about what has been going on for you (or in private)?
  • Daniel Fritschler Really nothing just random, seemingly for no reason bouts of frustration??? Why am I frustrated no idea…
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Frustration typically is a sign of an unfulfilled desire or commitment. There is also irritability- but 
    “for no reason” probably means there is a reason, but until you relax enough to be aware of it, it will be “a mystery.” However, people around you may have some suggestions for what is important to you that, when unfulfilled, precedes moments of frustration.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sometimes the issue is that frustration is so familiar as a way of attracting attention from others, that it is instantly there. Maybe you just want certain kinds of interactions (or to avoid certain kinds of interaction). Frustration is always a signal of SOMETHING. As you relax, clarity will arise naturally without any effort needed, though some “effort” may also arise naturally.
    3 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If the desire is something you consider “evil,” then the kind of comments you made above would reveal the kind of ego inhibitions that are being “pushed” in to consciousness by the desire. “Do people understand me? Shouldn’t they?!?!”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “hate or love?” “what should I say?” “Why don’t THEY get it/get me?”
  • Daniel Fritschler pretty silly when you put it that way…
  • Daniel Fritschler probably right on though
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Look for unfulfilled expectation (of yours in particular but even of others). Do you expect others to have similar expectations as you? Do you expect others to value the “objectivity” of refraining from arguing?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Are you frustrated if others keep wanting to argue? Are you frustrated because other people are?
  • Daniel Fritschler it doesn’t really matter who or what gets me i suppose. what is there to get I have alienated the world and there is no way to take any of that back. So now it is what it is
  • Daniel Fritschler no i am frustrated because I feel as though it doesn’t matter who agrees or who argues there is just nobody around and i suppose that is my fault in a sense
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or maybe “I have alienated the world” is imprecise. You may have invested in behaviors that produced relative seclusion or privacy. So what?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ok, so you want to reach out and you are not reaching out. (to other people)
  • Daniel Fritschler agreed. Most moments so what? But some moments is seems frustrating
  • Daniel Fritschler correct in a sense
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ok, when you feel the disappointment of too much privacy, then reach out. When you feel too much interaction, slow down or withdraw.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes there is a balance to be had and I am working on that balance. Reality is there is noone to reach out to. Which I am sure has something to do with the way I reach out. What is done is done so just to accept isolation is all that is left I guess
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn forget “there is no one to reach out to.” that is just medicine. after you take the medicine and recover, then stop taking the medicine.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn if there is isolation, you could accept it. If there is an urge to connect and commuincate, you can act on it or not.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes this is all being created for nothing. Just a “bad habit” i suppose maybe I should just resign maybe it is time
  • Daniel Fritschler I am unable to communicate how I feel obviously which is part of the problem cant find the words
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn then shut up and listen
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or interact with very little kids or animals. they will not distract you with words.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes the sounds of silence which I do enjoy…it seems you have cleared up my “problem” for the moment. Thanks
    3 hours ago · Unlike · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I presume that you want to interact with a variety of people in a variety of ways, but you can focus first on whatever is the most resonant for you. Go to a loud concert. NO one will complain that you are not talking much!
    3 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn More important than communicating what you feel can be to just feel what you feel. Take the opportunity to feel. When you are ready to communicate, you will.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes that is exactly what I needed to hear…feel it and the time will come when putting words to it will come. sounds “right” or sounds like that is the source of the frustration
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sharing the feelings is as simple as being present with someone. Anyone attentive and perceptive will feel the feeling without you saying anything. Also, I do things like play music (write music or listen to it). I watch comedy. I do lots of things to “nurture” my emotional health- from sad music to angry music to funny music to amazing virtuousity.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If you are frustrated that you are not doing everything, then do more. If you are frustrated that you are doing too much of something, then do less or just stop, at least for a while.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes it seems this just takes getting used to. It is too easy to still believe a thought and run with it but everything you are saying is right on. Just feeling like a poor little me at times still but I understand that is just holding onto comforting lies and not letting go
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn We may get accustomed to being pressured a lot- by parents, school, work. When that familiar pressure is not present, it may be strange- even disorienting. That is normal.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Daniel Fritschler yes exactly
  • Daniel Fritschler It seems I need to just sit back and enjoy what it is that I enjoy and everything else will take care of itself. this is what at times I am not doing and becoming frustrated
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Interacting and communicating can be good for bringing the thoughts in to attention. Instead of having them run around in the background, you can write them down- even if you send them to no one.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If you are pretending not to enjoy things you enjoy, that could be very frustrating.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn it takes a lot of energy to maintain a pretense like that.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes maybe I should start writing them down and not sharing foolishness with others. Yes it does take a lot of energy need to stop fighting what is.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn it can be good to have some inhibitions on “getting lost” in enjoyment. Fighting and inhibitions are part of what is.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn enjoy in moderation. write stuff down in moderation. share things in moderation. “fight what is” in moderation.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes moderation…the middle road…everything in moderation that sounds peaceful enough
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn and then be aware that there are times to be extreme as well, so “everything in moderation- including moderation itself”
  • Daniel Fritschler yes so just flow instead of trying to guess or effect the flow
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn peace- in moderation. activity and conflict- in moderation.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn go with the flow- in moderation. effect the flow- in moderation. Remember, you are the flow. Occasionally it is useful to take the medicine of “there is nothing but THE FLOW” … but only in moderation.
  • Daniel Fritschler so the recurring theme here is moderation in moderation and lack of this is causing frustration
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn well, you know, what they say: “frustration- in moderation.”
  • Daniel Fritschler haha yes I suppose they do. So all is the part and part is in the all.
  • Daniel Fritschler the whole point is to welcome it and not fight it when it is happening
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn the cure for feeling frustrated is to feel the frustration.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or at least that is what “they” say.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes just like everything else feel it no need to verbalize it
  • Daniel Fritschler yes “they”
  • Daniel Fritschler Very good my friend appreciate it all
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn there is something about verbalizing that is also a recurring theme. there are things that you want to talk about/chat about and people that you want to talk to. stop pretending otherwise. We can talk again another time. if you want to send me contact info, go ahead.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1

 

 

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)

Eternal Life or mortal symbol

February 17, 2012

 

Contrasting mortal words to Eternal Life

Anything that could be labeled eternal must already be now and always. In contrast, with language, a particular story can be constructed about a specific past memory. Any single isolated process is not eternal. In other words, anything that has ended cannot be eternal. Anything that is eternal cannot have ended.

Language isolates and contrasts. Language divides reality in to various identifiable distinctions, at least conceptually.

With language, a particular story can be constructed about a specific possibility for the future. Again, anything that is not already present cannot be eternal. Anything that is eternal cannot currently be absent.

Can eternal life be achieved? If something is eternal, it is already present.

Can eternal life be prevented? If something is eternal, it is always present… like inevitable.

Language is a set of symbolic labels. Language forms, develops, and sometimes may pause.

In the absence of the functioning of language, life is already present, always present, and eternally present. “Eternally” is a similar linguistic label to “always.”

Eternal life is not the product of language, though the words “eternal life” are symbolic labels in language. Eternal life refers to something distinct from language, something prior to mortal identifications in words.

Identifications or identities require language. Identifications are symbolic constructions in language and of language and by language.

Identifications and the process of identifying are only possible through language. Prior to the development of language, there is no identifying, no labeling, no contrasting, no isolating.

Past and future (as well as “present”) are labels in language. When linear language is functioning, the past can be contrasted from the future (not yet), but any particular past is a construction in language. Which part of the past is not constructed with language? Even to answer the question requires language.

Eternity does not require language. Eternity precedes the functioning of language. During the functioning of language, eternity remains.

Eternity is life. Life is eternity.

Can life be achieved? Can life be prevented? Life is eternal. It is already present, always present, inevitably and unavoidably and eternally present.

Can eternity be achieved? Can eternity be prevented? Eternity is alive now. It is already present, always present, inevitably and unavoidably and presently present.

Eternal life is what is present. There is no special language for achieving the eternal life that is always present. There is no isolated linguistic identifying of personality that achieves eternal life.

Eternal life forms language, using language to contrast, to label, to isolate, to identify. An identifying in language is something that Eternal Life can do. Eternal Life can create various identities. Those linguistic identities are like branches on a tree.

Can the branches of a tree cancel the tree? Can the branches of a tree achieve the tree?

The branches of the tree are already the tree. The linguistic identifyings formed by Eternal Life are like branches of a tree.

The tree is the more basic reality than the branches. The branches are mere formations of tree. More precisely, branching is something that the tree does. Branching is one activity of the tree, like rooting or flowering.

Likewise, identities are linguistic formations of Eternal Life. More precisely, linguistic identifying is something that Eternal Life does. Linguistic identifying (and isolating, labeling, contrasting, etc) is the activity of Eternal Life.

In the absence of the process of linguistic identifying, Eternal Life remains. In the presence of the process of linguistic identifying, Eternal Life remains.

Life is eternal eternity. Language is the activity of life. Language is a formation done by life. Identities in language are formations done by life. Identifying in language is something that Eternal Life can do.

Language is symbolic. Language is interpretation. There is no such thing as a literal interpretation. Interpretations involve the use of linguistic symbols. There are no literal symbols or literal interpretations or literal metaphors or even literal identities.

Identities are just constructions in language. Literally speaking, there is no such thing as non-linguistic linguistic identifyings. All linguistic identifyings are symbolic, figurative, interpretative, linguistic, poetic, metaphorical, mythological, and mortal.

Identifyings constructed in language cannot be eternal. Identifyings constructed in language must be mortal. Identifyings constructed in language must be words.

Words are mortal, not eternal. Identities are mortals. Mortals are linguistic identifyings, poetic, symbolic, figurative, interpretative, mythological, metaphorical. Mortals are just constructions in words. Mortal words are not Eternal Life.

The words “Eternal Life” are not Eternal Life. All words including the words “Eternal Life” are just linguistic labels, symbols, poetry.

The label “Eternal Life” is just one possible linguistic construction. The label “Eternal Life” is just another mortal.

In some other language besides English, some other label can refer to what is referenced by “Eternal Life.” Even within English, other labels can refer to what is referenced by “Eternal Life,” such as God, the Universe, Nature, Creation, Consciousness, Christ, the Tree of Life, the branches of the Tree of Life, and also all of the linguistic labels that figuratively isolate, that symbolically divide, that metaphorically contrast.

There are however a few linguistic labels that do not divide. For instance, who can name one thing that is not language? Who can speak without language? Who can be spoken of without language? What identity can be referenced without language? What linguistic identifying is not just a construction of symbolic poetry, of figurative interpretation, of metaphorical labels?

Are you a mortal constructed from words or are you Eternal Life which constructs mortals from words? If there is no linguistic answering constructed with words, are you still here? Can Eternal Life die? Can Eternal Life be reborn? When exactly was Eternal Life born?

When exactly are you not eternal? When exactly are you not alive as life itself?

When exactly is a branch not the tree? When does a branch achieve being the tree?

When exactly is a symbolic mortal identifying in words not merely symbolic? When exactly does a symbolic mortal identifying in words achieve Eternal Life? How exactly does a branch achieve being a tree? How exactly does a symbolic mortal identifying in words achieve Eternal Life?

A symbolic mortal identifying in words does not do anything. Eternal Life does symbolic mortal identifying in words.

A label does not do anything. A symbol does not do anything. A word does not do anything.

A flowering does not do anything. A breathing does not do anything. A melting does not do anything.

Melting and breathing and flowering are entirely valid symbolic mortal identifyings in words. They just do not do anything.

God and Jesus Christ and my future unborn great grandchildren and Santa Claus are entirely valid symbolic mortal identifyings in words. They just do not do anything. They are just labels in language.

A label does not do anything. A symbol does not do anything. A word does not do anything.

Eternal Life makes labels and symbols and words. Eternal Life can even construct non-sense linguistic formations like “non-linguistic language” or “literal interpretation.”

“I am not just a symbolic mortal identifying in words” is also non-sense. It is valid as a possible construction of language, but it is just figurative, just symbolic, just metaphorical, just linguistic.

Language is eternally symbolic, inevitably figurative, inherently metaphorical, intrinsically mortal. Eternal Life- as a construction in language- is also eternally symbolic, inevitably figurative, inherently metaphorical, intrinsically mortal. However, Eternal Life references that which constructs with language rather than some created creation of language.

What created Eternal Life? Who created Eternal Life? When exactly was Eternal Life created?

I create Eternal Life now. I did not do it in the past and I will not do it in the future because those are just labels in language (past and future).

I am now, already, and always. I create Eternal Life. I am creating Eternal Life now. I did not ever start creating Eternal Life. I did not ever plan to eventually create Eternal Life. I am creating Eternal Life.

I am also creating entirely valid linguistic formations like “achieving Eternal Life” and “preventing what is already present” and “I am not just a symbolic mortal linguistic identifying.” That is like a tree saying “no, I am not that branch. I am only these branches over here- or no how about this I am not any of those branchings at all. I did not do that branch or any of the others either. I do not know how the branches got there or how the branching happened. It must have been the devil. It is just a random coincidence. Maybe those branches do not even actually exist. Maybe they are just constructions of YOUR imagination! You, by the way, are definitely not me. You and I are inherently, intrinsically, and eternally isolated. Anyway, shouldn’t you be trying to achieve Eternal Life?”

Recognize that Eternal Life forms linguistic identities. You are not a personal linguistic identifying grafting to a branch or receiving Eternal Life or achieving Eternal Life. Eternal Life has always included all of it’s linguistic identities and symbolic formations.

You are Eternal Life. However, you can say that you are not. You can say that you are only an isolated persona of linguistic identifying. You can say you are only a believer, only a branch, only an isolated persona of linguistic identifying. That is just something that you can say, like “certain words are the most important of all words, and if I just believe in those words, then I can eventually achieve Eternal Life.”

Saying that a branch is not part of the tree does not change that the branching is inherently just a function that the tree does. Saying that an isolated mortal persona of symbolic, figurative, poetic, linguistic identifying is not Eternal Life does not change that Eternal Life forms and uses language (Logos).

advaita zen anatma brahman

 

my missions

February 10, 2012

(inspired by The Mankind Project)

 

one mission:
My past traps me. I am inherently lost and I need to be rescued or saved by something or someone, like by the right church, the right guide, the right words, the right job, the right partner, and the right way to live my life. I try to find the right solutions, but still my past traps me, for I am inherently lost.

 

 

the other mission:
I am the author of all possible ways of relating and of the future. I create the worlds of experience through the use of language. I can create being trapped by my past or by the world. I can create the world as something that traps me. I can create the past as something that traps me. I can create language as something that traps me. I can create God as an external, isolated force that is my enemy, who controls me and traps me and punishes me, and certainly is not me. However, as any branch of a vine is still the vine itself, or as one side of a piece of paper is still the paper, I am inherently the creative authority which authors all identities, even if I say that I am just a mere created identity of that authority.

Language of the Birds San Francisco

Language of the Birds San Francisco (Photo credit: davidyuweb)

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Image via Wikipedia

English: Language of the world.

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in summary:

I am the authority which creates language and uses it to create identities, such as “you” and “me” and “us” and “I” and “I am.” I am the author both of what is possible and impossible, which are just contrasting categories in language. If I say that something is impossible for me or for anyone else, that is just something I could say.

the road less traveled

February 8, 2012
Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Am I the one whose attention you seek?

Don’t you believe in your fears and don’t you want to be free
from the limits you claim keep you trapped in the past
and don’t you want me to release the courage you lack?
But what if fear is the first ingredient of courage?
And what if I’m not afraid to let you wallow in fear?
What if I point to truths you pretend you can’t know?
What if I point to myths you pretend can’t be myths?
No,
I’m not the one whose attention you seek
I don’t believe in your fears and I don’t mind if you’re free
You seek people who agree with you that you are trapped
but I’m a threat to the prison that you call your past
It’s a thought that you’re trapped and just a thought that you lack
something like courage that prevents you from freedom
That you’re not free is a thought
that you should be is a thought
and that something should be
may imply that it’s not
so if you should be free
that may mean that you’re trapped
in the thought that you should be
free from all these thoughts
about thinking and courage and freedom and what should be
but thoughts never trapped you
for thoughts cannot touch you
You may have simply pretended to be trapped
and that may have been fun for as long as it lasted
Yeah but I may be the one whose attention you fear
for attention can melt all the myths that you smeared
all over your thoughts and then claimed to be
but you’re not a myth
and you’re not a belief
and you’re not a thought
so you can’t be freed
from you
who do you think you are
who do you think you should be
stop
I think I just figured it out
you know you’ve been a harsh judge
so you fear your own attention
ha!
you try to make up for your past, right?
you want to earn redemption
and to some day get to heaven
but only if you can do it a certain way
right?
well, good intentions
are said to pave the road to hell
so you may choose to take the road less traveled

The Greatest Sock Puppet

February 1, 2012

 

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me.

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

“I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

That is a teaching about the sanskrit term Maya or the Judeo-Christian term Sin as in “original sin” and the human’s fall from grace. The same distinction is presented in different human languages as “Zen” and “Advaita.”

>

This particular conversation (below) borrows terminology from Jungian psychology (the “shadow”) and originates from a dialogue between two brothers of The Mankind Project. I am free. I do not have anything required as a method to become free, like as a method of liberation. Liberation is fine- but I am already free to explore any particular liberation or not.

ManKind Project

ManKind Project (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>

I am the truth. I do not have any method required to find truth, nor any method excluded in regard to distinguishing or labeling any particular pattern.

>

I am the way. I am not looking for a way to become what I assert that I am not already (unless I do look in such a way).

>

I am the life. When I move, that is the entirety of the universe moving as me, like an entire cloud dripping one raindrop and then another, or an enzyme making one protein and then another.

>

As a human, I may or may not state a particular “mission” (future emphasis). As a being, I am already the branch on the vine and the vine within the branch. The being is the source of the human persona or the process of identifying in language or the ego. When the word “I” is used, that can be used to reference an isolated persona of ego or to reference the source which creates and alters persona.

>

As an enzyme, I just make proteins. As an atom, I spin electrons around a nucleus. As a solar system, I light up the sun and send the planets orbiting around it. Before Abraham was, I am. (Before Jesus was, I am.)

>

When two people argue over which is the best cartoon character superhero (Spiderman or Superman), I am there. When two people argue over which is the best political candidate (Nixon or Kennedy), I am there. When two nations go to war, I am there. When two asteroids collide, I am there- colliding them as them.

>

Being does not end. It is eternal as in timeless. It is not waiting for heaven to start eventually, nor trying to earn its way in to it. Being is already here.

>

The Divine Presence is already here. God is already here. This is not a belief formed in words and then repeated such as in order to actualize some pursuit of a human ego. This is not the mechanical repetition of a passage of scripture. This is the voice at the source of the oral traditions of various languages which have been transcribed in to scripture and translated and edited and so on. I did all of that. (I am the one who created language and oral traditions and writing and then a thousand years later read what another part of me wrote down that yet another part of me said long before that.)

>

I am Being. I am not telling you this gain admission in to a club or to solicit your approval or personal opinion. In fact, I am not addressing you as someone other than me.

>

All that Being is typing here is what Being already knows and there is nowhere that Being is not and no one that Being is not. Being is the one who says “without a mission, you are lost.” Being is also the one who says “if I am lost, that is when I create a mission and a goal.” Being may even say “the being is never lost. Only the being’s human persona can have the experience of being lost or found, being seen or being ignored, being heard or being misunderstood.”

>

Each human persona has a specific destiny and path. The Being simply is. The Being is the one doing all of the human personas (which are distinct from one another as various patterns in language) and moving them toward their destinies.

>

Once upon a time a sock puppet said to another sock puppet, “can you please tell me what is the nature of the kingdom of heaven?” The other sock puppet answered and said “yes, of course I can. The kingdom of heaven is like a sock puppet. Recall the following words of the prophet Isaiah which did not make it in to the book you are carrying, but are just as valid a symbolic metaphor as any one the ones that did make it in to that book.”

>

Once upon a time there was a human being that put a sock puppet on each hand. One sock puppet said to the other “I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

By the way, these are not all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet. In fact, if all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet were to be compiled, there is no library big enough to contain of all those teachings, mostly because the great Sock Puppet is going to be giving some brand new teachings this Sunday, you know, like every other day so far.

Related articles
עברית: ויקיפד מפעיל בובת גרב English: Wikipedi...

Image via Wikipedia

In the beginning, LANGUAGE!

January 20, 2012
English: Repartition map of the languages over...

Image via Wikipedia

In language, there are labels of isolated categories that are not really isolated except in the symbolic representations of language, like boundaries and lines on maps that are really only “political” boundaries with no physical boundary like a fence or wall. Imagine opening the door of a building and leaving that doorway open and then talking about inside and outside. When the door is open, what boundary is there between inside and outside?

The language of the label “inside” or “outside” references an imaginary boundary, that is, a boundary that only exists in language. Even when the door is closed, the boundary between inside and outside still exists in language, though certain sensory organs (eyes and brains) may not be able to perceive visually through a closed opaque door. However, sounds from outside can be heard. While inside may be distinct from outside, the two categories are not really isolated. Indeed, they are contrasting partners which only exist relative to the other.

What is the boundary between the front of the hand and the back of the same hand? Where is the exact boundary between the hallway and the living room or the left side of the room and the right? Language forms those boundaries.

Further, what if all boundaries in language are primarily just in language? What if “I am blowing the clouds with the wind” is just as legitimate a claim as “I am typing this” or “I am spinning the electrons around that nucleus?”
filedesc http://www.epa.gov/win/winnews/images...

Image via Wikipedia

I say that I go here and I go there, but that is because language is for communication between humans. I may not say that I beat my heart and send my blood cells around to various destinations, nor do I say that I am assembling some proteins or spinning some electrons around a nucleus. However, all of that is just as much “my activities” of my “I” as this typing and the “me” doing the typing, as well as the reading of the typing and so on.

Indeed, without all of that biochemistry, there would be no typing at all. Further, I may not say that I spin around the axis of the earth nor that I am revolving around the sun, but I am whether or not I say so.

Language is a bunch of labels assembled in to claims, rather like amino acids assembled in to proteins. It is

English: Electrons are not a constant distance...

Image via Wikipedia

possible for language to form in to the claim “here is an I who has a choice and here is what I choose: to spin electrons around a nucleus.” It is possible for language to form a pronoun called me and for many thoughts about that me to be formed: what I am doing, what I choose, why I chose whatever I claim to have chosen, and so on.

In the beginning, there was the living word (the Logos), and the living word was with the perceiving of God, and the living word was the perceiving of God. So begins the Judeo-Christian New Testament with the opening verses of the book of John 1:1.

the four noble truths

January 10, 2012
Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering

Image via Wikipedia

This is a lesson based on a tradition called “the four noble truths.” Briefly, those truths are the first truth of suffering, the second truth of the cause of suffering, the third truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering, and the fourth truth of the way to live life after suffering.

The first truth of suffering involves relating to life as if there is some part of life that should not be how it is. Suffering is not simply pain or illness or old age or dying or even violence. Suffering is a way of relating to life. Suffering involves ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. While there are a variety of forms and intensities of suffering, what I mean by the word suffering includes all of them.

The second truth of the cause of suffering involves the recognizing of the power of words. Words are symbolic codes with an origin as signals of sound, though words can also be written. The term “words” can even include gestures and hand signals or “sign languages.” 

Words are distinct from a mere signal because of the importance of the sequencing of the words. Words are the origin of what can be called nonsense, such as “this should be what should not be.” The second truth, briefly, is that all suffering is caused by nonsense made of words.

Specifically, “this should not be how it is” is the kind of formation in words that can correspond to the experience of suffering, at least if there is a belief in the nonsense rather than a recognition of the nonsense as nonsense. “This should not be how it is” is rooted in “there is exactly one way that this should be.” In other words, suffering is rooted in the linguistic model of “there is exactly one way that this should be,” at least as it applies to some particular perception or experience. “There is exactly one way that this should be” is further rooted in “there is exactly one way that life should be,” which is nonsense.

However, if operating as if it is inherently true that life should be a certain way, then suffering is the natural and inevitable result. That suffering could be in the form of ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. Or that suffering could be mere frustration, worry, resentment, sorrow or grief.

Earlier than the belief that “there is exactly one way that life should be” is another presumption in language. That presumption is “there is exactly one way that life is,” which is also nonsense.

So, if there is a belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life is, then that leads to the belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life should be (which is also the way that it allegedly is), which leads to the various forms of suffering such as shame and blame and rage. If there is a belief that there is exactly one way that a particular thing is (which is also the way that it should be), then that belief in nonsense inevitably leads to various forms of suffering.

Beliefs are made of words. Beliefs are all nonsense. They are the origin of suffering.

Beliefs in what should be produce suffering. Beliefs in what is also produce suffering. Belief is also called idealism and idolatry and foolishness.

So, before we proceed to the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the causing of suffering, let’s review. The first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be.

Now, by summarizing those two truths close together, the nonsense of suffering may be extremely clear. If there is exactly one way that life is, but then life is not that way, then how can there be exactly one way that life is? Obviously, a linguistic construction of how life is exactly one way is part of life. So, if there is a logical conflict between a linguistic construction (or belief) about how life should be and the actual experience of how life is, then suffering is neglecting the actuality of life for the nonsense belief in words. 

In the Judeo-Christian terminology, neglecting the actuality of life by worshiping a nonsense belief in words is what is referenced by “placing another God before God.” In Muslim terminology, recognizing the actuality of life as distinct from worshiping a nonsense belief made of words is what is referenced by “there is no God but God.” Of course, because language involves codes, various interpretations of the encoded messages in words are possible. However, worshiping language instead of God is the root idolatry. 

Even the phrase “literal interpretation” is ironic because if something is recognized as an interpretation, then interpretation implies the use of symbolic codes of language. How can there be a “literal symbolism?” Such idealisms and idolatries are nonsense from the start.

However, nonsense is part of life. Should there be no nonsense? Should there be no beliefs made of words and no words? Should there be exactly one interpretation of anything?

Those ideas fall back in to the same trap of nonsense. It is not that there should be no suffering, nor that there should be any suffering. There either is suffering or there is not suffering. That is all.

So, the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering is simple. To discontinue causing yourself suffering, simply recognize how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. That recognizing is sufficient to discontinue the causing of suffering. 

In other words, suffering does not need to fixed. Suffering can be distinguished. The distinguishing of suffering results in a relaxing away from the beliefs that cause suffering. Once the beliefs are distinguished as nonsense, no additional beliefs are required to replace the presence of the prior beliefs. More beliefs will only bring more suffering.

To review again, the first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be. So, the linguistic belief that there is only one way that some part of life should be results naturally in relating to one or more parts of life as if they should not be how they are, which is suffering.

Further, the third noble truth is to discontinue causing yourself suffering by simply recognizing how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. Recognize the power of language and you will never worship any beliefs of language. You will be free of the suffering caused by the inattentive use of language.

So, there is no single way that life should be. There is no single way that anyone should be. There is no single way that I am. There is no single way of labeling life with language that is the only possible interpretations. All of those constructions in language are nonsense. Many interpretations in language are possible.

As for the fourth noble truth, the way to live life after suffering is basically to be attentive to language. Do what you must do. Do what you can do. Do what you should do. Do what you will do.

Now, there may be other interpretations of these four noble truths. Since these four noble truths are just symbols made of language, why shouldn’t there be multiple interpretations?

Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths should be? Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths are? 

Are there exactly four noble truths? Are these noble truths even true? What if there is no such thing as a noble truth except as a symbol in language?

If someone says “attention to language makes no difference,” so what? If someone challenges you with a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that their nonsense belief made of language is not a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that idolatry is not idolatry, so what? If someone says that their language is not idolatry but some other language is idolatry, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as freedom, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as language, so what?

Remember, when nonsense is recognized as nonsense, nonsense cannot cause suffering. Only believing in nonsense can cause suffering. So, one can play along with someone else’s beliefs or not. If someone is speaking the language of suffering, you can speak in that language as well, yet is there another form of language beyond suffering? Also, is there another form of interacting beyond the use of language?

how to stop suffering

January 6, 2012

 

To ask “how do I end suffering” is to perpetuate suffering. Notice that suffering is a practice, a behavior, a habit.

How do you stop walking? You can just allow yourself to stand still, which does not require any effort and is not so much a new doing of a stopping… as the ending of an old activity or process of walking.
You can’t really stop walking. You can only walk or not walk.
So, how do you stop suffering? You can’t really stop suffering. You can simply suffer or not suffer.
How do you stop agonizing? You simply agonize or not.
How do you stop whistling? You simply whistle or not.
By the way, if you think that the suffering is you, you can either think that or not. How do you stop thinking? You either think or not.
What notices thinking and walking and suffering and whistling and agonizing? Agonizing does not notice agonizing. Whistling does not notice whistling.
Notice who you are. Suffering or not suffering is only a problem if you claim to be one who has that problem as your personal, private problem. Whistling or not not whistling is only a problem if you claim to be the one who has that problem as your personal, private problem. Walking or not walking, agonizing or not agonizing, identifying a problem or not identifying a problem are all various actions that you can either perform or not.
What is the best problem to have? What is the right way to agonize? How do I stop suffering? How can I become more like I already am?
These are all silly questions. You can either ask silly questions or not.
You can even pretend to be the victim of your own agonizing. You can pretend that your problems are causing you to suffer, but perhaps you have been agonizing various problems into your experience.
Now, stop suffering. End suffering. Then, push so hard on the wind that you stop the wind.

%d bloggers like this: