the underground man

[Talking Ass]

That's good advice, Kelly. Get 'perfect understanding' first, then everything else just falls into place.

[David Quinn]

"An Apostle is not born: an Apostle is a man called and appointed by God, receiving a mission from him.... Authority is the decisive quality." ---Kierkegaard
________________________________________________________

Again, each of you is---and please permit me to use such strong language---outrightly lying. The problem here is your (in this case Kelly, David and now Jupe) essential dishonesty. What Kierkegaard wrote is exactly what he meant. "An Apostle is a man appointed by God". He meant God not 'infinity' or 'Totality'.

If you look at his work overall and the consistent depth and power of his insight, then you can see that he did indeed mean the Infinite. Here in this instance he is saying in his localized Christian language what I would say in my modern globalized language - that a man only becomes a sage (an apostle) when the innumerable causes of his existence leads him to the highest wisdom (i.e. when he is chosen by God). His newly-received enlightened understanding which smashes all worlds (his authority) is the decisive quality.

Or he could have been just another born-again Baptist-type Christian.

David writes: "Still, I have the feeling that their main purpose was to bring himself down to earth, as it were, to ground himself back into ordinary humanity, to become just another member of the community once again."

Really, only a complete block-head could write such a thing. The strength of your will in enforcing your interpretation-distortion is extraordinary. You deliberately mislead. The mission of Jesus as an outcome of the Revelation (God revealing himself in the consciousness and in the life of man) has only to do with men, and in Jesus' mission with men of the most common and 'ordinary' sort. Naturally, you have to vacate the Gospels of any such reference, of any such concern for average people.

I'm curious to know how you justify thinking of yourself as some sort of qualified expert on Jesus and Kierkegaard when you haven't put a single teaching of theirs into practice, nor made any attempt to follow in their footsteps, nor refrained from speaking against their level of spiritual extremism at every possible opportunity.

Just curious , Mr Assistant Professor ......

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's understandable that a few glances through Kierkegaard's work can lead to the question of how he saw his own Christianity, his faith in the Jesus from the Gospels, salvation, the blood and the cross and so on. Perhaps it's useful to explain a bit more here. First of all Kierkegaard dismissed any historical dialectic or analysis of Christ, as person living 1800 years ago. Textual or cultural analysis were absolutely not of interest for his view on the Christian core message. By his explicit denial of the relevance of historical context he brings the good story into the subjective, the existential. This attitude is so much present throughout his work and he voices it so many times that I take it as a given that any reader understands this and the obvious notion doesn't need to be defended.

• "History," says faith, "has nothing whatever to do with Christ" - wrote Kierkegaard in his 'Training in Christianity'

With this denial, superseding any notion of historicity, Kierkegaard already places himself amongst a very small minority within the Christian community, especially in his time. But still today, it's hard to find Christians with a similar attitude. Some fundamentalists might dismiss any inquiry or doubt into the context of their faith but they dismiss doubt as well on topics ranging from evolution, authorship of the bible or worldly education, making themselves natural enemies of Kierkegaard.

And still today the large majority of the Christians supposes historical reality of a Christ, and divine authorship of the bible, if not letter by letter than certainly the events, the miracles are "true". This is not the stance of Kierkegaard at all, not even when he writes about how faith presupposes the disappearance of doubt.

Some passages which might be of interest from "Training (Practise) in Christianity".

• CHRISTIANITY AS THE ABSOLUTE: CONTEMPORANEOUSNESS WITH CHRIST.
  
  Christianity did not come into the world as an admirable example of the gentle art of consolation - but as the absolute. Therefore everything men have hit upon relatively to explain the why and the wherefore is falsehood.... all this is falsehood, it is misrepresentation of Christianity, which is the absolute. But what, then, is the use of Christianity? It is, then, merely a plague to us! Ah, yes, that too can be said, relatively understood, the absolute is the greatest plague. In all moments of laxness, sluggishness, dullness, when the sensuous nature of man predominates, Christianity seems madness, since it is incommensurable with any finite wherefore. What is the use of it, then? The answer is: Hold thy peace! It is the absolute! And so it must be represented, viz. in such a way as to make it appear madness in the eyes of the sensuous man. And hence it is true, so true... when the wise and prudent man in the situation of contemporaneousness condemns Christ by saying, "He is literally nothing" - most certainly true, for He is the absolute - not for consolation, humanly understood; on the contrary.
  
  There is an endless yawning difference between God and man, and hence, in the situation of contemporaneousness, to become a Christian (to be transformed into likeness with God) proved to be an even greater torment and misery and pain than the greatest human torment, and hence also a crime in the eyes of one's neighbors. And so it will always prove when becoming a Christian in truth comes to mean to become contemporary with Christ.
  
  For in relation to the absolute there is only one tense: the present. For him who is not contemporary with the absolute - for him it has not existence. And as Christ is the absolute, it is easy to see that with respect to Him there is only one situation, that of contemporaneousness. The five, seven, the fifteen, the eighteen hundred years are neither here nor there; they do not change Him, neither do they in any wise reveal who He was, for how He is is revealed only to faith [edit: that is for Kierkegaard: when there's no doubting anymore, one has jumped, transcended the relative].

The earlier mentioned prayer follows, and right after it John 12:32 is quoted which held great importance to Kierkegaard: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto myself. And then a crucial passage:

• Christ was the truth [in His humiliation] and is the truth.

Christ for Kierkegaard is absolute truth, as well was the practice, which is the story of that practice of embodying thus in mind and soul, while drawing followers (of the infinite) towards this. Naturally this can only be meant in an universal, all encompassing sense, way beyond the limits and borders of any contemporary interpretation of the Gospels.

[Talking Ass]

Wonderful self-deluding sophistry Diebert! I would expect nothing less from you.

Diebert writes: "By his explicit denial of the relevance of historical context he brings the good story into the subjective, the existential. This attitude is so much present throughout his work and he voices it so many times that I take it as a given that any reader understands this and the obvious notion doesn't need to be defended."

No no no no no. You are at it again. It's revisionism and selective reading. You are attempting to explain, like David, like Kelly, what you have done with your reading. You have twisted meanings in your paraphrase that is according to you '[voiced] so many times that I take it as a given that any reader understands this and the obvious notion doesn't need to be defended'. This is a sophistical trick. I have read Kierkegaard explaining that one'd have a hard time discovering faith---the kind of faith that could really propel you in your living and acting---on the basis of any local Gospel event. In that sense he did not see that placing emphasis on a local (historical) event could be very helpful in the present. That could lead to an idolatrous 'admiration'. But to imply, as you seem to do, that he would have been content to jettison the Gosepls and the 'historicity' that produced the Messiah Jesus Christ, is bullshit.

What you are describing is what you have done, and you do it for your own purposes.

Diebert writes: "Christ for Kierkegaard is absolute truth, as well was the practice, which is the story of that practice of embodying thus in mind and soul, while drawing followers (of the infinite) towards this. Naturally this can only be meant in an universal, all encompassing sense, way beyond the limits and borders of any contemporary interpretation of the Gospels."

One sees where you are going with this---this paraphrase. 'Can only be meant' (as QRS-J and the Forth Genius have determined). The key to understanding why it is false or will result in falsity is subtle, yet it is there quite plainly. You say 'mind and soul', and what this means for you, and in the context of this forum, is absent the body. You remove Jesus Christ from his 'historical body', his context, as well as his direct involvement all the time with men, his admonitions to engage with men, and a huge part of his mission among men. You just don't like the way this sounds, it is aesthetically displeasing to you, with you nose sniffing the ass of your Zen idolatry. You wish to see 'Jesus Christ' doing whatever it is you desire to do, or not do as the case may be, and so you twist the texts to suit your purpose---shamelessly.

Isaiah 6:9-10

He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."

[Talking Ass]

Mahatma Quinn asks: "I'm curious to know how you justify thinking of yourself as some sort of qualified expert on Jesus and Kierkegaard when you haven't put a single teaching of theirs into practice, nor made any attempt to follow in their footsteps, nor refrained from speaking against their level of spiritual extremism at every possible opportunity."

You have so internalized your arrogance it takes on a kind of quaint quality that is almost charming. This arrogance of yours is vastly egotistical. You think you are one of the sole living representatives of Truth in this era, David. You know that you have no alternative but to progressively inhabit the spirit-castle you are constructing? You do know this is where it all leads, right?

I have avoided, and will continue to avoid, getting down on your level to play the vulgar game of spiritual comparisons. I leave 'the mountain' to you, so go and sit on it.

What I will say, becasue I think it is true, is that people can spend their whole lives pursuing some goal they have conceived for themselves. It functions on all levels, from the material to the spiritual. Especially when they are essentially directed by the ego. Sometimes it happens that at some point they realize that that is not what it was about, and that was not really the thing of value, the 'pearl'.

That is where Divinity enters in David.

Spiritual extremism is not the thing that wins the day. That is called (in my way of seeing) 'storming heaven'.

[David Quinn]

Jesus: "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to."

Kierkegaard: "It is eternally true that if one knocks, the door will be opened. But suppose that the difficulty for us human beings is simply that we are afraid to go - and knock."

Assistant Professor: "Can't you two just go away?"

-

[AlyOshA]

Sorry for this long post. I'm going away tomorrow for a couple of weeks and I don't have time to write succinctly, just rambling on...

Kelly, I hope you are recovering from the intelligently adaptable yet unconscious RNA virus attacking you. The seeming intelligence of DNA and RNA is a really interesting topic to me - has anyone posted about it on this forum?

You brought up some really interesting questions and they are challenging to try to articulate clearly. I don't have a lot of time so I will do my best to get the ball rolling... till next time.

"belonging somewhere else" is still not all that clear, yet, for me. This might just be a problem of words. How did you arrive at the analysis that your body and the world were a shallow and empty delusion? I'm guessing that you no longer think it's a true idea, and that it was possibly generated by a distaste for your relatives. But I'm not 100% convinced by that theory.

Do you mean that even though I claim that this "separation" between my body, the world, and my "self" - is not a separation at all - you still get the impression that I am separating them (perhaps unconsciously)? If I could only rely on one statement about God and the nature of Reality I would say simply that "God Is." So if you get a sense of "separation" in my writing then that would indicate a flaw in my thinking or the fact that I have not yet fully lived up to my philosophical ideal. The "somewhere else" only existed in the perspective of my youth. As for the psychological analysis of why I saw a distinct separation in my youth, why I would beg and cry to an imaginary god to let me die in my sleep, I can only guess that it was an immense oceanic web of connected "causes and effects" culminating to that point, I felt enslaved by my body and surroundings, I identified my "self" with the pain around me and wanted nothing more than to be free. I saw death as freedom, the concept comforted me like a mother's womb, returning from whence I came. To be honest, I am still comforted by the thought of death, though I am in no rush to get there. In the finite sense, death is the only guarantee in life.

Why do you think they were unable to use their presumably significant intelligence to think about why they were suffering?

I often wonder this about people. Why don't they look within to find the "cause" of their suffering? Sometimes a mere pin prick of pain gets overlooked or purposely ignored and that pin prick gets infected and grows exponentially over the years with new pin pricks and eventually it can turn into a bullet in the head. "Looking within" is hard work and lets face it most people just aren't willing to put forth the time and effort - they'd rather invent grand and convoluted escape routes. In the figurative sense, they are beckoning demons by identifying themselves with their pain.

Sometimes, consciously or unconsciously, people beckon despair, even beg for it. Despair is an entity, a demon, if you conjure - she will come. An intoxicating seductress, awe-inspiring, humbling, piercingly beautiful, a wicked bitch, a false lover, she fills you with vitality but drains you of your resources, you give everything to feed her desires. At the end you are left with nothing, broken, dry tears, you can't even appreciate her beauty.
Unlike other demons, she can speak to your soul.

What are your thoughts on family relationships, and marriage?

I am still an amateur on those subjects. I live far away from family and see them rarely. When I do see them it is an emotional hurricane of unconscious madness, trying its hardest to sweep me up into. My family doesn't like my perspective, I guess its too "sane" for them. My mother is diagnosed Bipolar Manic Depressive and her final words to me were "I don't want to hear any more of your intellectual bullshit". That shut me up. Now she lives like a cow grazing grass and waiting to be slaughtered. Sounds cold. But I have compassion and love.

As for marriage, I think it is "possible" though I am not one to comment on it for I have absolutely no experience. If both are intellectually and spiritually independent, they don't think they "complete" each other or any of that crap; no attempt at ownership or false identity issues, pardon the metaphor - just two birds free to fly anywhere they choose, but they choose to fly together. I'm not against having someone in my life, content to share a cup of tea or travel with me from time to time. Love in whatever form it manifests is a truly wonderful thing, but with relationships, if you base your happiness on them you will end up like a heroin addict coming off his/her high - swept up in the samsara of extreme pleasure and pain.

I noticed the "Infinite,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,Infinite" concept, and am guessing that the Zero Totality means something like "the hidden and empty source of all finitude", such that all things issue from something that has no finite essence, and so is essentially "nothing" in nature. Do you think there may be any element of nihilism, e.g. a rejection of body and "the world", in your concept of Zero Totality? Or do you think that you have closed the circle, and trust the idea of "sinking back" into your body and the world?

Answering this might be a "to be continued", but I'll start it off...

Firstly, I do not consider myself any kind of "teacher". I think it is ultimately the individual's responsibility to discover these conclusions on their own and there are many spiritual classics that have expressed these concepts far better than I can. So please take that into consideration when I discuss this because the last thing I want to do is come across that "my God" is the right God and that I am preaching to you. In my eyes it's just a discussion. Also notice I started sharing personal details about my life, this is not because I enjoy talking about myself, it is my attempt to elicit others to do the same. Context helps clarify mutual understanding.

The mathematical equivalent "Infinite,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,Infinite" is just a means of simplifying the conversation. Infinity and Zero are both non-dual, without attributes, formless, all-pervading, ever-present, all-encompassing - ALL that is nothing and everything. I sent you the Upanishads and there is a very simple mantra in the Isha Upanishad. I have this mantra memorized in Sanskrit and recite it when I making green tea because green tea is very sensitive and if brewed too long will go bitter. Reciting this mantra is the perfect amount of time for calculating when the tea is finished brewing (sorry that was probably TMI :)

There are many different ways to translate the word "Purna" so please refer to this website for the various translations of this mantra:
http://www.swamij.com/upanishad-isha-purna.htm

For the sake of discussion I will choose one:

Om.
That is infinite, this is infinite;
From That infinite this infinite comes.
From That infinite, this infinite removed or added;
Infinite remains infinite.
Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

To analyze this concept simply, God is nothing and everything (the Zero Totality). On the surface of existence everything appears finite, dual, battling in conflict between -1 and +1. But the "non-dual, without attributes, formless, all-pervading, ever-present, all-encompassing - ALL that is nothing and everything" is inherent to every manifestation, incarnation, evolution, and reconfiguration of finite occurrences. Even though things appear to be changing, coming and going, opposing one another and so forth they are inherently nonexistent, infinite, and non-dual which cannot be be added to, removed from, beginning or ending, "this" or "that" - the Infinite/Zero always remains Infinite/Zero... Liberated from identifying the "self" with the samsara of dualism, birth and death, pleasure and pain, by actively experiencing and understanding the non-dual, Infinite/Zero. Utilizing this finite/dual (fallible stinking human form) to express the Infinite/Zero with whatever "art" one chooses to the utmost of its potential. This is not nihilist or fatalist by my understanding. Is this clarifying anything or am I just rehashing the same old concepts expressed again and again? (I suspect that latter to be true).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have read Kierkegaard explaining that one'd have a hard time discovering faith---the kind of faith that could really propel you in your living and acting---on the basis of any local Gospel event. In that sense he did not see that placing emphasis on a local (historical) event could be very helpful in the present. That could lead to an idolatrous 'admiration'. But to imply, as you seem to do, that he would have been content to jettison the Gosepls and the 'historicity' that produced the Messiah Jesus Christ, is bullshit.

What do you mean with "local Gospel event"? Sounds to me like a real "sophistical trick".

And lets make it clear I didn't write about ejecting or rejecting any historicity of the gospels. It's just deemed by him irrelevant when it comes to being Christian or understanding the core of Christianity, and its "absoluteness". What's the point of quoting another dozen of passages saying the same in almost every conceivable way? It also all makes perfect, logical sense since any issue of historicity would necessarily involve endless layers of subjectivity, which cannot form a path towards "likeness with God".

It's time for you now to analyze the neurosis, the pathological condition of Kierkegaard, possible introduce frontal lobe epilepsy or anything you can think of to deny the obvious fact that Kierkegaard's take on the infinite is not any different from the one you are criticizing as pathological in nature. The always changing and shifting forms are putting you on your track but just as Kierkegaard already wrote, it must appear as some form of madness, as there's literally nothing there for you. No path of analysis or therapy could ever change this.

[Kelly Jones]

What Kierkegaard wrote is exactly what he meant. "An Apostle is a man appointed by God". He meant God not 'infinity' or 'Totality'.

Yet for you "Totality" means nothing, by your own admission. So, you have no comprehension of what it means. So, when others talk of it, you don't know what they're talking of. So, you can't know whether Kierkegaard was or wasn't referring to the infinitude of the Totality, when he spoke of God. You don't know what that means.

What Kierkegaard wrote is exactly what he meant, so let's see what he wrote.


.


I have childishly been able to get it through my head that God's infinity is manifested precisely in his being able to be concerned about the very least....


.


I readily recall what I so frequently recall — that in the relationship to God progress in one sense means that the longer one lives with him the farther he feels himself to be away from him in one sense, for, after all, he is infinitely more elevated.


.


The subjective existing thinker who has the categories of infinitude in his soul has them always, and therefore his form is continually negative. Suppose such a person devoted his whole life to writing one single book, suppose he published it, suppose he assumed there was a reader — he would then express his relationship to a reader negatively and without qualification; whereas a positive assistant professor who scribbles a book in fourteen days blissfully and positively addresses himself to the whole human race. That negative thinker, on the other hand, could never achieve any kind of direct relationship to his reader. He therefore would probably say: I can just as well recommend the reading of this book as advise against it, because, bluntly speaking, there is no direct gain from reading and no direct loss from not having read it.


.


The very silence that kept me in infinity was my strength — one single word, and my strength would have gone. If this is a mistake, then my greatness is in the same area as my mistake. But that is the way I have been brought up, and that is how I have understood life.

An essential part of my work was to give the appearance of living in abundance. For that very reason I am regarded as lacking earnestness — and I did not have a job either. That again indirectly condemns my life. But I have said nothing — I have simply acted by existing infinitely myself.


.


As stated, one must be constrained to decisions of finitude — the joy of freedom is precisely to venture out in decisions of infinity, and only through freedom can one make decisions of infinity. Most people do not understand this at all, for they are constrained to venture out in decisions of finitude — and they have no acquaintance with the infinite. It is just the opposite with me.


.


...if anyone wants to do something gratis, this is a crime in Mynster's eyes, for then he and his own life become incommensurable. No, if someone, for example, has an urge to preach, then it must be expressed by his getting himself a position, and so it is in everything. There must be no infinite as such — no, it must cancel out; everything must be explainable by the relative and must cancel out in the relative.


.


A complete dislocation of Christianity, as if it were something historical in the finite sense instead of being the unconditioned in the infinite sense.

It always comes back to the confusion that God has a cause in the finite, the historical, sense, something which has to be fought through to the end ...


.


And my task is this: myself an individuality and keeping myself that (and in infinite love God in heaven keeps an eye on this), to proclaim what boundless reality [Realitet ] every man has in himself when before God he wills to become himself. But consequently I do not have a stitch of doctrine — and doctrine is what people want. Because doctrine is the indolence of aping and mimicking for the learner, and doctrine is the way to sensate power for the teacher, for doctrine collects men. The proclamation of individuality is: blessedly compensated within oneself — to be sacrificed to men.


.

[Kelly Jones]

@Kelly Jones, all those things that you mentioned don't really matter once you achieve perfect understanding. There will always be problems, but that shouldn't prevent you from seeking ultimate truth at all costs. Otherwise, you'll end up still having problems, but no perfect understanding.

Jupta, I'm talking about life afterwards. Wisdom doesn't remove biological limitatations, or make one a superhuman. And one also has a responsibility to try not to harm people spiritually, by giving them more than they can possibly cope with.

It is arguable that Jesus actually suicided, by knowingly giving people too much - which has done immense spiritual harm. Egotists love the dead spiritual man.


.

[David Quinn]

The irony is, the "non-personal truth of the infinite" is infinitely more personal to us as individuals, in real everyday life, than the God-alien being which is conceived to exist separately from us.

Probably true in many cases. Key word here is "personal," implying that either NPT or GAB can do the trick. What motivates one to choose? Maybe it comes to whether NPT's or GAB's ass is nearer to the chair when the music of delusion stops.

It's true in all cases. The infinite, by its very nature, is utterly everywhere, and it is utterly everything. Every aspect of our ourselves, inwardly and outwardly, is the infinite. Hence, there can be nothing more direct and personal for an individual than to undermine his own conceptual defenses and recognize his infinite nature.

The God-alien being, on the other hand, is always impersonal, since it is always encased in a conceptual bubble and thus always removed from one's self, which is also encased in a conceptual bubble. Indeed, that is the very purpose of believing in such a God in the first place, to keep oneself isolated and therefore seemingly protected from the rest of reality. It is actually an expression of a lack of faith, and not, as they like to imagine, a fulfilment of it.

-

[cousinbasil]

It is actually an expression of a lack of faith, and not, as they like to imagine, a fulfilment of it.

And only the select few actually "get it." Get what, you say? Why, that life has no meaning. Indeed, the Truth is that there is no need for meaning.

How'm I doin', David? And why is this so important?

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Kelly,

Because doctrine is the indolence of aping and mimicking for the learner, and doctrine is the way to sensate power for the teacher, for doctrine collects men.

That concept is one of the great bullshit busters of all time.

It's easy to see how the K experience translates so harmoniously into the QRS conversation. A conversation belonging to a very small Category with the Property: refers to no-thing.

A converstion (thing)
that employs (thing)
Languaging, concepts (thing)
that point to no-thing.

Correct structure.

[Kelly Jones]

Yes. Also, those things (concepts) are the tools, and once they've done their work, can be laid to rest.

Some examples of formless things at work:

The substance of the Absolute is inwardly like wood or stone, in that it is motionless, and outwardly like the void, in that it is without bounds or obstructions. It is neither subjective nor objective, has no specific location, is formless, and cannot vanish. Those who hasten towards it dare not enter, fearing to hurtle down through the void with nothing to cling to or stay their fall. So they look to the brink and retreat.



The eighty-four thousand methods for countering the eighty-four thousand forms of delusion are merely figures of speech for drawing people towards the Gate. In fact, none of them have real existence. Relinquishment of everything is the Dharma, and he who understands this is a Buddha, but the relinquishment of ALL delusions leaves no Dharma in which to lay hold.



The way is spiritual Truth and was originally without name or title. It was only because people ignorantly sought for it empirically that the Buddhas appeared and taught them to eradicate this method of approach. Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name "Way". You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental concept of a road. So it is said, "When the fish is caught we pay no more attention to the trap". When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way is reached and Mind is understood.

— Huang Po


.


One who has faith, who diligently seeks the ultimate, not relying upon any demonstrated factor, inclined to subject the way of the world to reason, abandoning being and non-being attains peace.

Having comprehended apparent conditionality, the net of false views is swept aside. Consequently, abandoning attachment, delusion and anger, without stain, one surely reaches Nirvana.

— Nagarjuna


.


"I shall destroy this house, & no one shall be able to rebuild it." Thomas: 71



"Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." Thomas: 56



"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3



"The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, "Here it is," or "There it is," because the kingdom of God is in your midst. Luke 17: 20



"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the stone, & you will find me there." Thomas: 77

— Jesus


.


The Way has its reality and its signs, but is without movement or form. You can hand it down, but you cannot receive it. You can understand it, but you cannot see it. It is its own source, its own root. Before Heaven and earth existed it was there.

It exists beyond the highest point, and yet you cannot call it lofty; it exists beneath the limit of the six directions, and yet you cannot call it deep. It was born before Heaven and earth, and yet you cannot say it has been there for long. It is earlier than the earliest time, and yet you cannot call it old.



Who can join with others without joining with others? Who can do with others without doing with others? Who can climb up to heaven and wander in the mists, roam the infinite, and forget life forever and forever?

— Chuang Tzu


.


Let go in front
Let go behind
Let go in the middle
With a mind freed everywhere
You will be free from life and death.



Understanding

"I have an understanding of the scriptures" say all those priestly men. If only they had a correct understanding! Understanding is not hard to come by. The human mind has unlimited capacity to make sense out of absolutely anything - we call it "creativity". But the Truth is deeply hidden. It presents itself only to those who are brave enough to abandon their creativity and finite intelligence.

— Solway


.


Someone once asked, "Tell me Diogenes, what does a wise man look like?" At once, Diogenes straightened himself up and stroked his beard.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes. Also, those things (concepts) are the tools, and once they've done their work, can be laid to rest.

Good work Kelly.
K's valuable pointer about the positive assistant professor resonates also.

Causation's conveyor belt has me sometimes for the time being immersed in the space of the ego or enslavement and sometimes for the time being immersed in the space of Sage or freedom.
I like to refer to these spaces as Domains of Being.
The Domain of the ego and the Sage Domain.

Each Domain has a taste as it were.
I'm familiar with both.

The ego appears to rise from a feeling of lack and insecurity and seeks answers in conceptual clusters in order to recover security. It attaches to these clusters or available cultural paradigms like mainstream christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Socialism etc...these clusters then provide a World consisting of a belief system and a Herd. The ego loves that shit and strides about like Genghis Khan on steroids leaving misery in it's wake. Inauthentic.

The Sage Domain is security and relaxation into being. No need for answers. A light touch, the recognition that getting too heavy into a conceptual fortress enslaves and leads to misery. The Sage walks on by. Authentic.

[jupiviv]

@Kelly Jones, if a person is biologically capable of attaining perfect understanding, then I don't see how there would be biological limitattions after attaining it.

I don't understand what you mean by giving people 'too much'. Truth is not tea. There is only one kind of realisation, and you either have it or you don't. Besides if you were to base your writings on whether people will accept it or not you'll never produce anything of value.

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Kelly,
I'm inclined to pursue a line of reasoning with you in order to give rise to a possible explanation as to why the QRS conversation experiences difficulties, a condition you in particular appear to notice and mention. That is, that the conversation experiences difficulties.

It's possible this enquiry isn't something you'd like to engage, that's OK. I can walk on by too.

We've already agreed that the conversation has correct structure, that things are structured to point to no-thing.

Lao Tsu indicated that not only does the conversation require correct structure but those who come to the conversation require to be correctly structured.
His metaphor being 'structured like as a cup, ready to receive'.

I think we can agree on the distinguishing of Ego and Sage. On the difference of experiencing Life from Sage and experiencing Life from Ego. Sage being freedom, Ego being enslavement.

I would like to propose that some posters arrive here and now in the conversation coming from 'experiencing Sageness' or 'Saging' and that some posters arrive here and now in the conversation coming from 'experiencing Ego' or Egoing.

Makes sense doesn't it?

I'll go on to say as possible evidence, there's a poster called Unidian or Nat who recently came to the conversation because he was bored, that's a dead giveaway in exposing Ego, because bored is 'feeling lack and requiring a solution'.
Nat's solution was to come here and create havoc and return to his own website claiming triumphant victory and rejoicing in the scalps he'd apparently taken.

This structure Nat embodies as a poster is not the correct structure in which to engage the conversation in such a way as to be open to what is being offered. I think that's a decent conclusion to make.

That the realisation of no-thing by necessity requires both correct structure in the conversation and correct structure in the participants.
Having both modes correctly structured would produce ease of transmission.
Any one mode poorly structured would produce difficulties in transmission.

Syllogism: (roughly)

In the QRS conversation, over time, some posters get it...some don't.
The conversation can deliver 'get it'.
The difficulty is in the poster rather than the conversation.

[Kelly Jones]

@Kelly Jones, if a person is biologically capable of attaining perfect understanding, then I don't see how there would be biological limitattions after attaining it.

Having a perfect understanding is far from a perfect application. What one does after attaining that understanding is the far harder and longer part of enlightenment, focussed on outgrowing karma. This is a biological process, and involves significant strain on the bodily organism. Living organisms have evolved with some basic laws: to conserve energy, and minimising effort as much as possible. But deep consciousness has a different modus operandi: it asks for 24 hours a day. There is a certain neurological tension of maintaining as high a pitch of perfection as one possibly can, while not ennervating oneself.


You know:

Taking a rest
It is impossible for the lover of God to take a rest from God. Even when life becomes unbearable because of God's demands, and when one asks God for permission to take a rest, the rest period is no less strenuous, for the rest is again the God-relationship.

We may get involved with God on the understanding that God will love us. But soon we find out that it is God who wants to be loved, and according to God's understanding of what love is. It is not easy to be a Christian, even for the best of us: it is permittable to say "I dare not".


.


Beware

When that mind of Truth finally does arrive, you are in more danger than ever! At first there is no attachment, but soon the beast of enjoyment rears its ugly head. With enjoyment one becomes willingly blind. Your purity and stillness of mind may well have been the fruit of wisdom, but the ego will come forth and take the credit. Now, with its increased strength and confidence it is not one to let upsetting thoughts arise. The ego becomes King once more, stronger than before.

Even if you manage to dethrone the ego again, and return to reason, the damage has been done. The ego has been fed its nectar of the gods, and it will not forget!

So I warn you that as your God consciousness expands, so does your ego. Do not underestimate the power of the ego! It will remain strong and powerful beneath your deepest thoughts, ready to pounce at every opportunity, until the final ember of desire has grown cold.


.


Push On!

Don't side step, push-on! Don't stop for a rest, push-on!

A marathon runner knows it is better to decrease the tempo, yet maintain a steady pace and momentum, than to be stopping and starting. Never refrain from the battle for a moment: be a foe-destroyer. Begin by cutting down the forest of desires (gross delusions), and then the undergrowth (the subtle delusions) . . . then! . . .

Consecrate yourselves earnestly to your work, for even little drops of water, falling ceaselessly will finally make a hole, even in a rock. - Buddha


.


Trying

To slip into trying is to slip into delusion. We make so much work for ourselves! In the first place we justify our deluded behaviour, taking us sufficiently far from Truth to feel safe. Then, to give us something to do, we manage to justify a battle to return to the Truth we have lost!

This is not the Way! You need neither take a rest in attachments nor return to Truth, but slip imperceptibly into the stillness of boundlessness. Discover the Supreme Knack, and attain simplicity. Truth can be neither lost nor gained.



.

I don't understand what you mean by giving people 'too much'. Truth is not tea. There is only one kind of realisation, and you either have it or you don't. Besides if you were to base your writings on whether people will accept it or not you'll never produce anything of value.

You know the idea of the Buddhist realms: hell, preta, animal, warring gods, devas, and the form and formless realms. All these indicate that people go through different cycles that lead into each other. For example, in hell, a person has very little capacity to become aware of the Infinite in a deep and pure sense. They could only cope with the most diluted forms of Truth, such as dreamy ethereal music, "nowhere" type fantasy images, letting life waft over them without being conscious of it.

So while Truth is not changeable, people's capacity is variable. The wise have a responsibility to discern their capacity, and find the best medicines appropriate for their level. It is delightful to "throw a calabash of poison" and the student comes up shining, but most people take a bit longer to exchange their samsaric beliefs for death-doling freedom.


..

[Dennis Mahar]

I just want to clarify my argument.
There appears to be a logical contradiction that a critic could use to defeat it.

The basis of the reasoning is that the Ego arises due to a feeling of lack and then seeks a solution in order to fix that lack.

The critic could then respond that I have argued that some posters possess a lack of structure about them.
Yes.
But I'm not getting into the solution zone.
I'm getting into what is.

[Blair]

The critic could then respond that I have argued that some posters possess a lack of structure about them.

There is no ultimate structure, that's the point.

[Dennis Mahar]

prince wrote

There is no ultimate structure, that's the point.

You do realise in saying that you've given it structure.

[Kelly Jones]

No, not necessarily, Dennis. Prince may have done, yes. But someone saying that there is no ultimate structure, can reflect the meaning of that statement onto their saying that there is no ultimate structure, and make their words silent.

Words aren't inherently delimiting, nor is thought. It all depends what one understands by them.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

I could be a smartarse and tell you that you have just given me more structure Kelly but I won't because I respect you as a leader in the conversation.

Are you saying by this:

But someone saying that there is no ultimate structure, can reflect the meaning of that statement onto their saying that there is no ultimate structure, and make their words silent.

something like what, I think it was Wittgenstein, contributed:
our concepts, structured, like ladders, we use to climb to a place whereof we cannot speak...that's not exactly it but the sense is provided.
'a place whereof we cannot speak' would mean understanding.
First there's structure then there's not.
That's cool, I get it.

But can it be acknowledged again that correct structure priorly delivers the knowing of no-structure.

PS. Just so it's known I respect prince too.

[Dennis Mahar]

Sorry, I was rude earlier.

perhaps this is the situation.

I'm looking at a bee in a bottle. How a bee is in a bottle.
You both are saying there is no bottle and may go further and say there is no bee to get out of the no-bottle.

[Blair]

The Bee and the Bottle are one and the same.

They appear to be seperate, distinct entities because your senses process a three-dimensional reality limited in frequency range, bound by the concept of time.