IF i had guts.. or would it be stupidity?

Because it would certainly be comprehended as both.

But then , maybe that's what the student-type ought to do.


OK.... well here is the scoop.. i found a decent place where the id's discuss buddhist stuff. And myself , in the deluded wisdom of my inferiority complex, feels that it would be highly trollistic do simply spatter unannounced, uninvited comments or questions....... esp with any of the presumptuous names i would chose to be commenting with.

And since i am all cynical like or bouncy or acquisitive...... i think that if not that i should boldly put myself out there in introduction, i would surely be rejected for a know it all fool by the very skilled company in these parts.

And frankly that would deeply pain and crush my sweet little illusion that i might have found a place to sharpen my sword, and try to express if i have understood correctly.etc.etc.

IN that introduction i am sure i should brag... like a child..... and perhaps betimes show potential but not quite so....... a fledgling.

I do not come here to be smart though you will notice i take pains with trying to appear clever. But i am not afraid to admit when i am in error.

AS for Buddhism i have merely read a bunch of zen stuff, and dun a spot of sitting. i have also studied Hinduism. although a wee bit more in-depth as it seemed to suit me better.

But this buddhism..... technically i can hardly understand the words of Buddha... but in contemplation i seem to know.

But there are also strange and sarcastic doubts , resistances........

well i guess that's just part of this journey .. But i have been out of practice and out of Buddhist study for a long while ( er a bit for those who are better with the dedication that i am) And recently got turned on to the study of no self... i remember this mental rumble... and that i favored keeping my ego...
and then i went off into the world and dug into the whole atheist V. christian thing and then decided well...... perhaps i am a agnostic and a mystic dreamer.

but lately the path of figuring out logic, brought Buddha into mind...

was His logical? and I am pitiful and unskilled and cant even answer that question. even if i said well yeah no duh.

As for no self i think the clearest i got was....either what i think i is... it is non-existent .. un-provable just like god...... but i have already heard form someone that is incorrect.

so i thought this existence is not ......... then i figured i needed a break form this and picked up the Surangama Sutra..... i absolutely hate this sutra.

sounds like Buddha is presenting false delima and.. well isn't he unable to be disagreed with or Wrong, like a cult leader? I want to understand how come it is logic and must logic be the shiznit? COULD it be a sort of deception because we are crafty and ignorant?)... ( see, some of my questions are strange i have said.. are they serious ones? well... we'll see it if slips away.)

so as you can see i am pretty screwed up.

I wonder if you all wont mind if i try to grow feathers here.


IZM

But *clicks tongue* too bad i don't have the guts and or stupidity to post this.

buy the way if deemed a troll be thankful i am not an obnoxious one.

what is there is no *self* either

insanezenmistress : i am desperately trying to learn this critical logic
shit

RaaN : it should be taught... but the powers that be would rather everyone
just believed and didn't think at least not for themselves individuals are
the bane of authority,sorry.. undeserved authority

insanezenmistress : ... ya know we pretend that aliens who are more
intelligent that ourselves could come and take over....... but why haven't
the few intelligent among us taken over? i can't even properly judge my
fellow man's ignorance because the powers that control us have never let
me see what we are capable of.

RaaN : It's the first law of management.. there isn't any
insanezenmistress : no law of management?
RaaN : No management. People believe in conspiracies because it reassures them
that even though they are terrible at least there is some order and
control.
insanezenmistress : better the demon i know?
RaaN : not exactly
insanezenmistress : yes i like to think there is a structure that one can
infiltrate but in my clearer moments i think the beast is too
large.......... it must be random i mean they don't hire people to draw the
sublimials and there is no government office in charge of making sure the same satanic symbolism gets repeatedly used in corporate logos.

RaaN : strange attractors the brain is a pattern making machine. seeing
patterns even when there are none. Primitive thinking; the critical thinker
does not believe. Have i sold you on this belief is bullshit idea yet?
Don't believe me that its true but find out for yourself.

insanezenmistress : nearly. no more talking i need to think out loud.
RaaN : pllrrt......
................................................................
RaaN : i never underestimate the potential of human ingenuity..

insanezenmistress: i don't...it is a question of time and evolution..(an
intellectual kind)

RaaN : i consider ignorance belief and so forth to be anathema to the
species.
insanezenmistress : i am not sure i can take a harsh view of belief.... i
can note the flaws but who is to blame if you think in limited extremes..
not the book... not the metaphor of human philosophy.

RaaN: i don't blame any book.. just believers. The speed and capacity of
computer intelligence doubles about every 10 years, at that rate around
2030 a computer will meet and exceed our brain capacity.
insanezenmistress: why should we depend on the thing we create,and devalue
the mind of man?
RaaN : it's a tool
insanezenmistress : we will not use it as a tool
RaaN : Brain-machine interface will have to keep up with the advances
insanezenmistress : i am so not down with that
RaaN : too bad cos it's fairly inevitable.
insanezenmistress : i know we will take the lazy way out
RaaN : you are interface with a computer right now
insanezenmistress : yup
RaaN : so what aren't you down with?
insanezenmistress: and though we have computers feed us and clothe us and
keep track of us....we would give up human beauty, the development of our
natural resources as well as intellect's natural unification's of our whole
minds and enjoy life. we will still not have evolved
RaaN : bullshit
insanezenmistress : we will still kill
RaaN: that may be true or not
insanezenmistress: we could reach higher
RaaN : the evolution of technology is what it is.. the artist will use the
tools
insanezenmistress : sure, and i am not thinking of abandoning the
machine. But, human evolution is not technological invention.
RaaN: says who? the true technological age is still in its infancy but as
it grows so then does science and reason become more difficult to refute.
insanezenmistress : reason is not human totality. humans are not just
reason
RaaN : no but reason is entirely compatible with true spiritual
enlightenment
insanezenmistress : is it?
RaaN : yes
insanezenmistress : when you take your enlightenment with a computer chip
and mnemonic device it is cheating.
RaaN : no, i didn't say that;but basically irrationality is actually
incompatible with true enlightenment'
insanezenmistress: But that is human NATURE. so them zen masters did have
a perfect logic when they told fairy tales or tugged a bell prior to the
enlightenment of another. That kind of logic is not provable not in the
realm of science and reason.
RaaN : to go beyond reason as one does in spiritual awakening it is not
the same as being irrational.
insanezenmistress: explain please
RaaN : and to go beyond reason one must then know the limits of reason
insanezenmistress : yes
RaaN : what is beyond reason is not nonsense
insanezenmistress: ok
RaaN : Zen masters use a form of teaching to enable a student to reach the
limits of reason and see beyond it but the Buddha was eminently rational.

insanezenmistress : when a person attempts to communicate what is beyond
reason it can only come forth in symbol and wordless meaning or in
mythologies... analogies for this thing the speaker is trying to share granted at the point the notion enters the other mind it is already
delusion but if looked into purely it might reveal the underlying
beyond-ness
RaaN : there are many methods.. they are practical.. they serve a
purpose.. and end.. beyond that end once achieved they can well be
discarded
insanezenmistress : yes but my point is to what good is belief... as a
pointer not the act of believe, i mean the story of it
RaaN : it isn't. To believe is to assume an idea as factual and true
without evidence proof or rationality to believe is to cling to a view

insanezenmistress: .... when i say i believe perhaps i mean i can align my
intention into the mythology.. like i can use a jesus parable to express
a deeper lesson and give jesus the credit. i guess i see belief as method
RaaN : No rational person of sound thinking clings to any view but adopts
it as a practical tool pending some more efficient or complete view.

insanezenmistress : and argue for the legitimacy of the method of the
story/method used. But we all cling until we can't, well we cant start off flying can we?
In the perfect atheist world, little children will read stories about
unreal people in untrue situations to engage them, even play with the
imagination to instill a moral or idea. How is religion different except it
is misused?

RaaN : Many concepts are better explained by use of analogy or simile or
metaphor it is the clinging to a given view that is irrational
anti-enlightened.
It is perfectly natural of a human being to employ tools of
whatever level complexity.
insanezenmistress : ok so normal that i pray and it helps me process
shit.
RaaN : pray?
insanezenmistress : openly converse with myself
RaaN : you call that praying?
insanezenmistress : well i express emotions and comfort, faith etc. what
ever
RaaN : you mean out loud?
insanezenmistress : yeah
RaaN : so you talk to yourself
insanezenmistress : sure
RaaN : move your lips when you read too? lol
insanezenmistress : nope
RaaN : i think to myself but the only time a talk out loud when i'm on my
own when i'm mad...err angry
insanezenmistress : so its ok to externalise and pretend but delusion to
belive in it as outside and all important.
RaaN : Maybe it's just therapeutic to pretend
insanezenmistress : yes. i guess we are all like that..........the
disdainable part is what happens when ego gets involved; is that what you
mean?
RaaN : Depends on how you happen to define the ego.
insanezenmistress: When i should think to myself how important i am that
god talks with me.. and how i have some message to get them to
understand.... i need to blah blah blah
RaaN : i'd say believing any of that would be going in the wrong direction
insanezenmistress : Me too but sometimes it is fun to groove on it......or
in some way psyically or physically meaningful at the moment. Like to
get something written but obsession is OUT.
RaaN : No i mean believing that you are talking to god.
insanezenmistress : well god is the only word i know for it really....
RaaN : thoughts arise, actions occur... believing there is an I that does
it .. is just a belief
insanezenmistress : if there wasn't the body would not move. believe has
nothign to so with moving my body.... i can believe the arm will move but
unless the I lifts it in obdience to belief it can't move... er wont move
of my doing... it could be moved but that is belief also
RaaN : a thought occurs to lift the arm and the arm lifts
insanezenmistress : if i chose
RaaN : you huh?
Better look into that
insanezenmistress : ....
if the arm is moved and not by my thought.... wait, the
thought of the pusher of my arm moved
RaaN : you control your arm you control the thought to move your arm.
insanezenmistress : ...lighting my ciggarette and i chose that over waving
my hand.
RaaN: you control the urge to think to move it who controls the you that
does this?
insanezenmistress : i suppose some people would guess it is god.
RaaN: so all your actions are acts of God?
insanezenmistress : kinda, but i don't know how to respond.
RaaN : it's pretty basic.. if i am in control then do i control my
controlling?
insanezenmistress : yes
RaaN : and control my controlling controlling and control that?
insanezenmistress : ok so it goes on.... that must mean it is error.
RaaN : ad infintum how do i get anything done at all?
insanezenmistress : will..you stop the mind
RaaN : do i think.. i think i'll think this thought as i think the
thought? do i decide to decide the decision i am making as i decide?
insanezenmistress :perhaps we do making infinite decisions it is borne
from an impulse....you think the goal and your mind sets about showing you
how...it is fast
RaaN: we don't. The control seems to me pretty much a hindsigth idea.
insanezenmistress : *sigh*
RaaN : no-self
insanezenmistress : what is I
RaaN : not-I......
insanezenmistress : is it the same It for each of us therefore not
individaul? AS in 'you are as much I and i am unto myself?'
RaaN : how do you know I have an I?
insanezenmistress : because of your conscience.. it differs. ...weird that
contradicts huh? it differs because of your view... also you have an I
becasue your knowledge is other than mine and when we agree it is the same
as mine....
insanezenmistress : er scratch that
RaaN : all you see is words on the screen. i could be a spontaneously
arisen program that mimics conversation taking random parts of existing
words from various source according to an algorhythm based on your input; in fact that is really exactly what this you call me is.
insanezenmistress : hum, a feed back loop but, no i thought i meant something different.
RaaN : it's a belief
insanezenmistress : hum
RaaN : A belief in self is ego. Ego is as self with a history. Zen is the
direct pointing at the true nature of the self beyond words and
scriptures. The true nature of the self is no-self..... no-self no-other ....but if
you then say all is one you'd have gone off track.
Imagine all you see is appearance only.. no actual substance behind
it.. like the matrix only no reality to wake up to.

insanezenmistress : you and i are feedback loops of the same infinite
knowledge.
RaaN : that part is easy
insanezenmistress : woo hoo..........

..................................
RaaN : next imagine there is only appearance but nobody seeing it. the appearance is not an appearance of anything nor appearing to anyone
but as appearance cannot be appearance at all

insanezenmistress : sounds like babble.

RaaN : not anything appearing and not appearing to anyone it cannot then
be called appearance but it is appearance only.

insanezenmistress : i just thought, maybe where this leads is the
appearence is in our imaginations
RaaN : whose? no one there looking.
insanezenmistress: mine when i imagine for myself. our's when we imagine we
wake up in a creul world. (this "no one looking is going " bit is going to come back to haunt
me when it comes around, isn't it?) . I look, don't * I count*?

RaaN : that's a belief
insanezenmistress : hum...then what do i see; what do i rationalise?
RaaN : what proof do you really have that there is a self behind your eyes
looking?
insanezenmistress : science shows how all "things" are parts of larger
orginisums. all things have symbiotic function within larger things. our consciousness sould be a thing within a larger being
RaaN: Meister Eckhart, the christian mystic said "The eye with which I see
God is the eye with which God sees me"
insanezenmistress: yes yes
RaaN : think instead that the I that sees that is that which is seen
insanezenmistress : ok..
RaaN: that trying to find where the seeing is leads to realizing that the
seeing is all, without any seer nor any seen
insanezenmistress : yes and that is why we can share ideas
RaaN : and yet we can't latch onto this seeing as some ultimate oneness
insanezenmistress : no.........we cant.........
RaaN : becasue without an i seeing or a thing seen how can it be called
seeing at all?
insanezenmistress : ok
RaaN : see?
insanezenmistress : i dont know
RaaN : lol
........................
RaaN: With no substance or person of god behind experience and no you or
self experiencing there is only experience itself except with no you or
i/it it cannot really be understood as experience
to asnwer you question.. this self is an illusion so is substance or
concreteness
insanezenmistress : i could just as easily not be. anti conscious: and
whos to say that state does not have its own awareness.
RaaN : an illusion caused by the nature of phenomena which fully seen and
the illusion seen as such, is not even that anymore because as soon as you
say the phenomena is real or that you see it the illusion of self and
substance comes back.
insanezenmistress : alright... yes..
RaaN : without being fooled by the illusion anymore the mind thinks the
body acts events occur.. words are spoken responses are given emotions
balance.. the natural tendeny to heal.. the body the mind and the minds of
others naturally occurs.
insanezenmistress : ... i suppose this proces brings a flowing *perfect*
harmony to ones living.
RaaN : go with the flow.. is not you going nor anything flowing
insanezenmistress : yes...ok just its been a while since i looks so deep
at 'there is not an i' that goes with the flow and ascribs meaning or
intent....: ekk my brain is tired
RaaN : the heart beats the lungs breath the mouth eats the body ages death
happens.. nothing is lost
insanezenmistress : a neumonic device might be a loverly gift from satan
about now ...

(((((PS.. i'll have to try spell check later casue it is on the frizt))))))

what if, there is no *i*

I am not sure i will be able to recreate the essence of the conversation i had yesternight, but i will try.

I suppose it was an extremely logical direct conversation. But there is the end of it which i cant think is true even if it is logical. That being i am not I.

that appearance has no form; i am not seeing.
my Brain flips over and i think in terms of if that then this...... and this is borne of the implication of that and that and that.... see things are...

But he would then drone on in what really appears to be a circular kind of logic that ends again with there fore i am not.

baffling.

so i exist in my end of not-ness, wondering if there is a flaw in logic.

because no matter how true a thing is... it's implications don't seem to be my experience... it seems i cannot effect my reality according to my will if i am the seeing and the seen. Yet i sometimes see how my reality is completely the one i made. baffling.

hummm

well i know i am off some but... i hope the person wont mind if i quote him and poke at his effigy for all my two readers to see.

*was side tracked... it seems that i accidentally killed my praying mantis female. see i have them roaming freely in the kitchen to help with the roach problem. I am really hurt....

But i pondered as i was taking her nearly lifeless body outside...... was it nerves twitching or was it life?.... and recalling how firmly a human can hold on to the bear is-ness of life, sometimes by shear will when all means are exhausted.
I thought...

this bugs life force. it's conscious.. its will to exist as it is............ is it not the same as my own?

That superiority of race and morality infest themselves as an after thought... This creature's impulse and images of staying conscious are the same as mine. This critter might not be able to think to itself and imagine great poetry's about the winds and the yummy grasshoppers of its youth............ but then one cannot say..... i don't recall being a praying mantis.

unless.... in that whole written experience of what a mantis might be. i have made the appearance of a thing experienced as mantis......... and in the time that i physically experienced the mantis it was and i was it.

now i am not mantis...yet she... the mantis..... continues in her experience of either dieing or recovering in the grass.

i assume.

see that person i was talking with kept marking a place called.."belief"

i guess i am still very tripped up on apparent duality.

brb.....


Quothe.
" insanezenmistress : Wouldn't the world have to give up personal freedom to have the same logic.
RaaN : knowledge is a living thing as vital as humanity itself.. it grows and changes and self corrects... plenty of room for freedom.
insanezenmistress : individuality is akin to personal mythology. Is a personal belief system disdain-able? ( here observe the word disdain-able is to due with the author's not disdaining belief in the way as the Opponent.)
RaaN : true.. you'd have to believe you really exist
insanezenmistress : i think ; i believe i am part of an existence; and it is my perosnal mythology to fancy a war with my bugs.
RaaN: remember no-self.... phenomenology.. how seeing is not found in the eye or the object or the light between.

RaaN : you can alter your way of understanding things to suit a given problem and just as easily discard it in another case.. that's freedom.... however to abandon your senses and lose your integrity would be irrational if not insane.

.......................

Well.... so lets think.......

seeing is not seen in the eye.

at first glance we say to ourselves...it is obvious that i see what it there... right?

then he goes.....

RaaN : association by similarity is primitive infantile thinking btw.
As a child i though the clouds made the wind.. and the trees, cos i'd see them wave.and when i waved a branch it made wind.
insanezenmistress : and Do you think i am engaged an association by similarity in another way?

RaaN : well thinking that having a rational mind would prevent people from having individuality and freedom, that's kind of a nonsequitor. Critical thinking is a learned skill eh.
insanezenmistress : oh hush

........

yes i got stomped ...
well as time would have it i shall have to copy and edit this conversation later on.


Leaving you a Cliff hanger.... in the mean time read the Surangama sutra.....TWICE!

THEN

Ponder this segway quote from possibly the same Person toward another person that touches on the same ideas here expounded.....

""Not-self" does not mean that the personality does not exist, and it does not mean that people are unintelligent and can't talk. It means that there is no being or entity in the midst of those mechanisms and experiences.

Any time I've asked you to demonstrate that there is a being present or necessary for you to have experiences or to talk about them or to feel that you exist, you either ignore the question or give a self-referential answer, meaning that you use the question as the answer.

For instance, if I ask you "how do you know there's a self responsible for you talking" you will say "well if there were no self I wouldn't be talking." That's not a proof, just a belief. I've asked you to tell me where the self is and what it looks like.

Use famous methods for either showing that there is nothing there behind the concept of self, or forcing the person who sincerely answers the question to give a detailed explanation of what constitutes self. You do neither.

You either give a vague answer like "the whole universe" or "the universe looking back at itself in the mirror," or else go back to stating that the fact that we can do, think and feel proves there is a self, which it does not.

Your mystical experiences are valid in their own right, but there is no rigor in how you connect those experiences with the concept of self and not-self as used by Buddhists."

*groans... wait till next blog....*