Karl

Nope,Just working on your wisdom right now.The body maybe later

I learned in my days as a therapist that mostly you just work on yourself anyway regardless of the client, but you keep right on if it brings you joy, or whatever :-)

Body is in far more need. I'm going to run out of body before I run into wisdom. No good putting the best oil in an engine in which the bearings have already failed.

Not wacky at all.That is the darn point everyone has been making. The one you refuse to see.Joy is our natural state. It radiates outward in a beautiful loving manner. It can be an everyday thing.I have written about this every since I started meditating Karl.. Check the ayp thread "Are you happy".You are the one keeping yourself from that realization with all of your local mind rationalization.There is more out there.. You just have to let go to see it, to feel it.If you want help, I am sure there are many people here willing to help you.I wish you the best.. and maybe only one thread to keep saying the same things in.....Have a good day,Tom

It's very wacky for an amateur logician. I even tried to convert it into a working syllogism for a bit of fun, but it wouldn't turn into one no matter how much screwing around I did. Peikoff might do it, but not me.

You don't seem very joyful, but then I'm not a good judge of Internet mood :-)

If you were stuck in one state consistently how would you know what joy was ? Surely you have to have an alternative like sorrow to contrast it with. Sounds very boring. Like a monochrome room or music with one note.

What makes you think I have anything to realise ? I take reality as it is, in whatever way it is, in all its unique and marvellous forms. I do not look for greater emotional satisfaction than I already have. I'm contented with whatever comfort I have at whatever time I have it. What will you offer a man who has exactly the right amount of happiness and joy ?

It would be nice to have my bodily youth back and my eyesight, but not at the expense of wisdom. Can you offer me that ?

You make jokes, but now I don't even believe that you know what one-pointed concentration is nor realize the implications of your declaration.

 

If you could make your mind one-pointed for as long as you wanted, you would have accomplished all the jhanas, realized all the siddhis. If you could focus on awareness being aware of awareness (meditation without an object) for as long as you want, you would have accomplished what most people can only dream of accomplishing.

 

There is something terribly wrong with what you say.

Well I don't intend to do it for very long so maybe that makes it easier to accept that I wouldn't have all these jhanas and siddhis (but then I don't need or want any ) :-)

Awareness cant be aware of itself.

Meditation without an object. Well just to approach meditation you must already be an object able to perform the action of meditation.

 

 An opportunity to give unpleasant energy to someone(or thing) else to carry or deal with. Results in joy.

 

If we listen to music, then we notice significant mood rise and if we turn the volume up we get even higher joy also noticing that its harder and harder to concentrate on some other activity, it comes more difficult to understand what i read.

Conclusion:

Joy is opposite to mental energy. Mental energy is result of bearing unpleasant energy.

Wacky ;-)

It is evident that you have thought a lot about "Reasoning". Have you thought about what gives us the ability to reason? The ability to see, taste, hear, smell, feel?

That's where the essence of awakening and enlightenment lies imho.

You just used reasoning, to reason that reasoning isn't necessary.

See the obvious logical flaw ?

1.What is joy?

2.Why it comes?

3.What initiates joy, or what is the catalyst for joy?

4.Why it disappears, what makes it to disappear?

1. An emotion which we label pleasurable

2. Because we are in tune with the universe

3. An experience, either direct perception or a recalled memory, sometimes both.

4. Like music, there must be dynamics. If there was always joy it would be like a monotone frequency.

Third eye is mid-brain structure and functions.

 

This determines image-making from various types of vibrations.

 

Most people today are barely making images from normal visual sense - there is so much they seem to miss.

 

Good functioning mid-brain can process beyond the visual spectrum, including "light" beyond ultraviolet, and "magnetism", etc.

 

One way of improving is physiological - regaining something like normal functioning.

 

Instead of shocking novice system by taking external DMT, internal DMT functions are developed by darkness trainings.

 

Darkness training basic concept (not full explanation) is using body homeostasis functions to withdraw or block from part of spectrum, in one case, the upper range of and past ultraviolet, by staying in infrared or below (darkness).

 

Results from training will depend on preparation and function of the person - because modern living is making functionality obstacles that decades of meditation training could not improve alone.

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

interesting.

Reason has its place in our lives certainly, as does emotion. 

And there is much more beyond for those who care to look with sincerity.

Peace

There is nothing beyond reality, but first you must know how to know reality. Knowing how to know is the basis for all occulted knowledge. One who does not know how to know is like an illiterate in a library. He may see the books, he may be as close to touching, or to let his eyes roam over the symbols, but he is unable to extract anything.

Minds eye. Inner vision, altered consciousness.

DMT was the drug of choice-chemicals have resonance as does everything else-but mushrooms are the quickest way. I tried to get a Peruvian Shamen to get me the drugs, but he wouldn't. He told me I would be extremely ill having never built up a tolerance of the effects. DMT is a naturally occurring chemical in the spine/ brain stem which is perhaps where the idea of Kundalini comes from ?

The mushrooms grow symbiotically on the roots of pine trees and have been used in tribes for millennia. It's rumoured that this is the source of our tradition of Christmas trees and decoration. Collectors of the mushrooms would often line the branches of the trees with them when out foraging in order they dry in the sun which made carrying them easier. First Christmas ornaments were edible and it's interesting to find some ornaments are mushroom shaped or have mushroom designs.

I owe you an apology, Karl.

I posted the stoned Spock photo because I thought you must be pulling my leg.

Perhaps not...

 

In answer to your question, morals and values arise spontaneously as a consequence of our ability to connect to others and our environment in a genuine way. When we feel that connection, that warmth, that spark of sharing something precious with another, life and awareness for example, we lose the ability to take advantage of another, we can no longer stand seeing other sentient beings suffer. That is the foundation for lasting and incontrovertible morality and ethics.

 

Any morals or ethics derived through reason and thought are on shaky ground because the very mind that "created" them is equally capable of tearing them down. We see that every day in our lives as we see the heartlessness, the opportunism, the selfishness. Reason is extremely powerful, it has created human civilization (or at least takes the credit) but, at the same time, it is responsible for just as much destruction. As it rests on a foundation of relative causes and conditions, it is ever changing and unstable. Reference the numerous philosophies we see throughout human history. The moral and ethical truths that reason is reaching for and finds always just out of its grasp, is not of or created by reason, they are much more stable but also subtle and elusive and easily obscured and ignored.

Poor reasoning might cause destruction, or emotion with the control of reason, but not reason itself.

Even Kant understood reason was the only cause of morality.

We bare the burden of free will and reason is the only filter. Therefore be careful to develop correct reasoning.

I don't think you have yet reached the stage where your emotions and thoughts are clearly identified. If you had, then you would instantly see the connections that bind them together.

It's seems to me you have a misconception about reason. Perhaps it's too much exposure to Star Trek and the character of Spock ? I'm not joking here, because you did post it. Is this your definition ? A cold, logic bound, unfeeling alien struggling to keep things under control and acting more like a computer ? It really isn't at all that way :-) it's perfect unity. The Yin and Yang in balance. Compassion becomes practical compassion that can do some firm corrective action, love becomes a deep, abiding flow that stems from reason and not lust or ownership. Openness is no longer naivety but true open mindedness seated in wisdom.

If someone was driving you down a dangerous, busy road. Would you prefer emotion or reason at the wheel. When reason and emotion work together in unity you can have fun and be responsible. That's the blend to aim for. When the going gets tough you really don't want a 'flapper' or the 'positive minded' who will simply accept things without acting.

This does seem to argue against your previous statement that all qualities of a man[sic] are products of reason. Are you retracting that statement?

No. Just expanding.

https://howthebrainlearns.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/6-major-parts-of-the-brain-and-how-they-work/

the above might help. I can't comment on the accuracy of the work, but the general idea is there.

What's with all the 3rd eye hype?   It's a major mind power that can be used spiritually or abused demonically...  also why do us rookies think about and desire to open something if we can't really close it - if or when needed?

 

Btw, there are those that are super intuitive and insightful yet wisely never tinker around with certain practices on their own related to 3rd eye stuff yet in effect they have a partial opening in a key and important way.  (although without all the levels of astral visionary stuff - which falls under "the need to know" saying anyway)

DMT will do it.

Mushrooms man. :-)

For some reason I don't believe you.

As I said you wouldn't. So we are no further forward despite all that nostril breathing malarkey. Sure glad I didn't do three hours.

 

A visual thesaurus shows all human made words are inherently linked (because they are all human perception constructs), and any two can be linked typically in under 10 levels of synonymic abstractions.  Each word is inherently some human's subjective perception filtered unique to that minds map of constructs.

 

For this reason, when one tries to put Truth into words, one quickly finds words are not a vessel with the capacity to hold more than some degrees of subjective perception constructs.  This is why, in Santa Cruz here, when it's 65degF outside, people bundle up and wear hoodies and gloves and say it's a very cold day.  For an Eskimo, this same 65degF day may be hotter than they have ever fathomed was possible to achieve, and would be busting out the slip-n-slides.   Same human, and neither is incorrect or untrue to themselves, both have the same human skin and nerves and senses to perceive the environment, but as words are inherently subjective one declares it's a very cold day and one declares it's a very hot day, both are 'truth' to the limits of the words as they subjectively know them to be. 

 

A decade ago, I lived in an illusion I was filled with 'truth' and 'knew things' and believed that anytime I wanted I could just jot down some perceived to me as a factual non-fallacious statement and it was truth.  

 

Now every-thing, every-word, every-phrase, every-book,  shows itself clearly rooted in the origins of some humans faith based assumption of knowing.  This includes all of science, all of philosophy, all of religion, etc.  

 

To use the example with the Apple, no matter how many webs of subjective perception qualities of 'apple-ness' we create and introduce, and no matter how many games we create and apply towards methods of re-arrangement and cross-checking for agreement/disagreement with our 'apple-ness' terms, and no matter how skilled our game of 'apple-ness' term comparison becomes, or how many tomes of 'apple-ness' related analysis and poetry we craft, it still doesn't equate the apple, it just moves further from the primary source of apple-ness (the apple) into fabricated construct delusion of apple-ness alone. 

 

There are word games taught for boxing-up and hence controlling 'weak' minds, there are word games taught for boxing-up and controlling/limiting the thought domain of average minds (Trivium), and there are word games taught for boxing-up of strong minds (CTMU, etc).

 

After mastering any of the word game systems, one is left with mastery of a game and not awareness of Reality (which was the initial motivation in learning the game in the first place). 

 

When I first read the Diamond Sutra, it seemed like a lot of confusing and contradictory BS.  The very same words today ring clear like a bell and every few lines I have to stop to ponder the immense wisdom in it and wipe tears of joy.  Same words, same being reading, entirely different impact and meaning.  This is the nature of words, they can not even mean the same thing to the same person twice, let alone carry truths to those unready to explore them. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

That's a lot of words to expound a fairly simple argument which I have heard many times. Of course words are conceptual keys. Their make up doesn't matter-but we will come back to that.

You have picked English words, you could pick Chinese and I wouldn't initially have a clue as to the meaning or concept of the symbols.

First find the definition and agree on it. So, in any integration of concepts one must accurately define the words used. The same with any argumentation. If the words of the premise cannot be accurately defined then there is zero chance of a succesful integration.

now back to why the make up of words matter because you obviously know we are forming sounds. I think you have an inkling about the great song of the universe. The OM sound and all that good stuff. Have you ever wondered how we come to choose the sounds and words we use to represent reality ? Does the penny drop ? For me it was more an atom bomb than a penny. Words are the song of the universe into minds which are the ears of the universe. Here then is reality, if you listen. Once the song is transcribed accurately then reality is revealed. All the universe from the golden cut-the great OM.

What are the first principles of reason?

 

What are the first principles of Ethics?

 

How are emotions a result of reason?

 

And what are the first principles of the reasoning that leads to emotions?

All reasoning must begin with something that was not reasoned and the no reasoning can prove the first principles of reasoning.

I'm not going to discuss ethics as it would take too long.

Emotion is an effect. We are born with both cognitive and emotive faculty. Then we have to integrate them in the correct order. when we are young there is little reasoning and a much emotion. At first we are wired in series. Our minds can then absorb vast amounts of experience. We aren't reasoning much as yet and our emotions are given free reign. As we reach puberty our brains begin a rewiring process into parallel. Now the confusion begins as experience, reason and emotion begin to radically effect each other.

A man can be at the mercy of pure emotion if he is not sufficiently mature. This should come as no surprise. It is the age of lust and ego building. We fight to impress and to win sexual mates. This is why it is said "there are no rules in love and war". Reason is secondary to emotion.

At around the age of 55 (give or take). Reason has begun its golden age in those who have nurtured it. Emotion becomes a guide, but no longer a driving force. It is the beginning of wisdom, the lessening of the egoic nature and the blossoming of a deeper rational loving.

The earlier reasoning is developed the better. However, our modern education system, the political system and the media are predicated on the emotional responses because emotional is controllable. If the educator/politician/media can manipulate the child into handing decision making over to an authority-the state, then it can use Pavlovian response techniques of pleasure/pain response and reward to control the actions of the subject.

So, the question is not so simple as you had put it. If you are immature then you will experience emotions without applying rationality. The less reasoning-even as an adult-the more your actions will be controlled by emotion and then those actions will be rationalised. Love will be an expansive emotion with little connection to reason.

You should know what you are feeling and what is making you feel that way. These are the subtle areas of witnessing beyond noticing thoughts one should notice moods.

Develop reason sufficiently and you are no longer a prisoner of emotion, instead it works for you to provide joy and pleasure in the world instead of suffering and confusion.

The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.

-- Alvin Toffler

Thanks for answering the question.

I sort of inferred that but try not to be too presumptive.

We'll have to disagree on that point as well.

 

For me, higher reasoning plays little role in spirituality which is much more about feeling, openness, connection, and love.

It's of value in the beginning when we are assimilating information but there is another universe of possibility that one can come to if one has the aptitude and requisite karma.

 

I was of the opinion that you hold for a very long time. Not surprising as I tend towards the left brain very strongly and my background is in science. I mentioned Krishnamurti earlier because more than just about any other spiritual teacher (Watts is the other one), he really appealed to my higher reason. And he is a good enough teacher (or perhaps I was a good enough student, or both) that he helped me transcend that limitation as that is his core message regarding spirituality - we must go beyond the known and see what, if anything, there is that lies beyond the realm of thought. And it is not a question in the sense that he or anyone else can answer for you. It is an invitation to do the personal, internal investigation. In a sense he uses that higher reason to transcend itself. One of the yoga schools does the same, I believe, but I can't recall the name.

 

Along the same lines there is a nice little book by Steven Harrison called The Question to Life's Answers in which he describes the fact that unanswered questions are alive and full of possibility whereas answers are dead. Once we answer a question we stop looking, stop being open.

 

Anyway, I have my path and you have yours. I wish you well.

Where do you derive morals and values if not through reason ? All the qualities of a man are the product of reason. Love, connection, compassion, openness are all the result of moral values derived by reasoning.

As you say, you have a path you wish to follow. Best wishes.

Karl, this is getting ridiculous.

 

You are a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian.  You have an incredible left brain, it's extended way out there - you know about so many things.  But this isn't awakening.  It's just knowledge.

 

The people that you continually argue with are people with third eyes.  They're people who can triangulate, who have discovered the wisdom of their inner essence.  You have yet to do this.  And because you are so vocal, you are compromising the integrity of every TDB thread you're on, because they all turn out to be about you.  ( I know you'll throw that one back at me, so please don't bother).

 

Please consider opening your mind just a bit, and allowing the possibility that somebody else may be in possession of knowledge that you don't possess.  You are casting out so hard that you're scaring the fish away.

It isn't me who is asking about me now, is it ? :-)

It's you that claims you have third eyes, triangulation and wisdom of inner essence. When it's tested it breaks down into egoic defence very quickly.

It is not my mind which requires opening. If you wish to shut down the discussion you should ask your inner wisdom why that is.

As in Johns poem-see the contradiction and ask what it is telling you.

FWIW:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_interference_experimenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

I've deliberately avoided going into detail, it isn't necessary.

Not correct if A and B are not mutually exclusive categories.

I can be both an asshole and a nice guy, depends when you catch me.

 

 

 

The experiments are completely conclusive and not theoretical but rather experimental - do some reading on particle-wave experiments if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

 

 

Too general to be an accurate statement, IMO. 

There's some very good work going on in physics.

 

 

 

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm surprised to hear you say this if you truly think science is "going up its own tailpipe."

 

 

 

Here we can agree although I don't see it as the point of life, just a characteristic.

 

 

 

For me they reveal the limitations of thought, logic, and reason. 

They are very valuable tools but to use your words, we are so much greater than we can even imagine [think] we can be.

For me, they are an invitation to go beyond thought.

This appears to have been John's intent based on his other writings and it is the invitation extended by most spiritual paths.

 

 

 

 

That's where the work needs to be done, with the mind that wants to reject.

Seeing that there is a limitation in the power of thought and logic, we may be willing to look beyond those.

If your path is thought and logic and you have no interest in going beyond that, that is fine and it is your path.

Then I wonder what spirituality means for you?

This brings us back full circle to the start of this discussion where I asked:

 

"Hi Karl,

I don't mean to be argumentative but I am curious about what you think you can prove and how to go about that in the spiritual realm.

Warm regards,

Steve"

 

 

That's true if we are discussing an analytical exercise.

That's not where I'm coming from, nor was John.

Higher reasoning IS spirituality. Its what sets us apart from all other animals.

How is the intellect holistic?

 

You can't be including the wisdom of the body or heart in your definition as it doesn't have to be trained or refined particularly. Many modern day experts in psychology are now saying that the inherent wisdom of the body has a greater intelligence to deal with a lot of the stresses, traumas and difficult situations we encounter in life than the intellect, the reasoning part of mind often just gets in the way in processing much of our life by creating stories and beliefs around our experiences. 

 

I don't see how you can be including the greater intelligence we see all around us in your definition either, for example the wisdom it takes to balance an ecosystem or to produce life, because that wisdom is part of the whole and is inherent, so isn't limited to an individual trained mind. 

It isn't an either/ or sort of thing, it's an integral and inseparable faculty.

There are automatic functions of the body which don't need intellect. An animal is a good example of an entirely automatic, non reasoning instinctive animal. Perception is everything to an animal. It doesn't need higher level reasoning to survive, eat, fight and mate.

An ecosystem is an organic development, there is no intelligence behind it. It's the same way the free market works (or would do if we would refrain from trying to control it). It's in effect a self organising and self balancing organism. If you look at what we have created you can see that one man, or one group is incapable of creating something as simple as a pencil. Even a chicken sandwich would be an immense feat for a single household to create and yet we can pop into any high street cafe, pub, supermarket, vending machine, or garage and purchase one for a tiny sum of cash. I digress.

Yes you can what exactly?

Single pointed mind without disturbance. For as long as I choose.

Nope - both wave and particle properties exist in light and this has been verified many times experimentally.

It's not that they are wrong, it's more the blind people and elephant thing... 

They don't see the whole picture - just like you and I don't see the whole picture.

 

 

 

You're missing the point. John did not want us to remove those contradictions. 

For John those contradictions are pointing to a higher level of consciousness than the logic that is stymied by them. 

I base that on having read and listened to a fair amount of his work.

 

And this speaks to the earlier point about creating our reality.

We both read the same poem - to you it is an admonition for analytical reasoning and to me a pointer towards the non-conceptual.

 

Anam Cara is a particularly good place to start if his work interests you. 

Something is either A or B or neither. The experiments are inconclusive and theoretical. We got turned around and scrapped reasoned philosophy and now science is going up its own tail pipe. Anyway, in time it will be revealed.

No one sees the whole picture, that's the point of life and the ability to explore and comprehend the universe. We are so much greater than we can even imagine we can be.

John asked what those contradictions revealed. What do you think they reveal ? If you hold that something is an elephant is also a cream puff then what can you learn ? That's a straight contradiction and nothing more complex is required for an example. Except you cannot hold a simple contradiction because you know it is one and so your mind will reject it. Only a contradiction that isn't obviously a contradiction can be brought into mind and so it can be applied that finding the contradiction is the point of the exercise.

You can train the intellect like a tool, but a tool is just a tool, it doesn't define who you are. You can spend your life perfecting the intellect into an amazing instrument, which can help in many areas of life like earning a living, but at some point it is going to disintegrate, you could get a brain injury, alzheimers and then it dies. Therefore if you are exclusively identified with that changing, disintegrating aspect of yourself you inevitably are going to be living in fear and isolation. You are still living in a imprisoned, limited sense of yourself which isn't actually true. 

Intellect is holistic. The reason you haven't fully understood this is precisely because of modern methods of specialisation. Our education system trains us to think specifically in a silo. It is not so much education, as skills training, to which is applied a tiny portion of the potency available.

You are yourself. If you get a brain injury, or Alzheimer's then all bets are off. It doesn't matter how much meditation or intellectual reasoning is applied- getting hit by a high speed express train will end it all pretty comprehensively in my experience. However you are off probing all possible futures when it's more effective to stay in the moment and plan loosely.

What I have learned is that most of the time when I'm going to succeed in making the mind one-pointed, it takes about 1 minute from start of the session.

 

Mastery of the process is indicated by the ability to sit in one-pointed concentration for 3 hours and enter that state any time.

 

Forget the samadhi part, just from a concentration point of view, can you make your mind one-pointed on the sensation of the air as it enters and exits your right nostril? 

 

It is not child's play as you suggest. It is pretty hard.

 

And you know, the funny thing is that if your mind is one-pointed, you lose track of time, so three hours can fly by in no time at all.

 

And, not sure why you bring up AYP in your responses. AYP does not teach one-pointed concentration as per Patanjali.

Yes, I can, how many more times do I have to tell you ?

AYP does not teach one pointed concentration which is why I said Yogani wasn't my only master. I brought it up because you have suggested in previous posts that I couldn't possibly have practiced correctly because I was following AYP.

I don't want 3 hours to fly by in a state of dead minded bliss, I have few enough hours left and prefer to live them.