How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[Daniel]

On 8/22/2023 at 1:35 AM, C T said:

A hammer has conventional designates. Depending on the user, really, a hammer can also 'be' many other things. Is a hammer still a hammer when it's used as a door-stop? What is it when it's lying in the toolbox? 

 

One who employs the hammer as a tool to hit nails with and another who uses it as a doorstop could well have an endless debate over nothing because ultimately, there's really only expressions of various applications of this particular object. But human tendencies and habits often gets in the way of validating the nuances and the limitless potential of the essence behind the mere appearance of an object (in this case, the hammer). 

 

 

Well.  I disagree.  In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates".  Although, those last two are controversial.  These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer.  And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else.

 

For example, I have used rocks as hammers.  And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm.  The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example.

 

On 8/22/2023 at 1:35 AM, C T said:

So it can be said that a hammer is both a hammer (conventional truth) and not a hammer (ultimate truth) simultaneously. 

 

I vote no.  It's always and forever a hammer.  Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer.  What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name?  And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week?  We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything.  But of course... the child would not accept it.

 

Anyway... 

 

On 8/22/2023 at 1:35 AM, C T said:

To go beyond... means when it's no longer in use, we must know to put it away. This is crucial. We mustn't make the common mistake of assigning more importance to anything than is necessary. Then a tool ends up being a burden or an obstacle. Or worse, we falsely identify with and make assertions over what is basically something that possesses nothing other than a mere label. 

 

OK, well.   Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress.  This is where I was when I asked the question. 

 

Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer.  I'll put that down, put it away.  Poof.  Bye-bye.  There's two truths.  Conventional / unconventional.  Both are true.  Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye.  Those two truths are gone.  They're not true at all.  They don't even exist.  I've never heard of them.  Hammer?  what's that?  I've never heard of it.  I have no idea what that is.  I have no words to describe it.  Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction.  Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction.  Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Nothing produces a reaction.  There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me.  And I am completely catatonic.

 

That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths.  But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me.  Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals.

 

So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept.  But it's not too important.  I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time".  ( in quotes, because time is wonky )

 

But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it.  But, there is no pressure from me to do so.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Michael Sternbach]

On 20.8.2023 at 10:01 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.
 

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
 

The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

(Wikipedia, "Gödel's incompleteness theorems")

 

 

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything, but after considering Gödel's Theorem, he concluded that one was not obtainable. "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

(Wikipedia, "Theory of Everything")

The Hawking quote is from a lecture he gave, that ends:

 

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

(Godel and the end of physics, 2002, Stephen Hawking Estate)

 

 

 

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.


... According to Brouwer, a statement that an object exists having a given property means that, and is only proved, when a method is known which in principle at least will enable such an object to be found or constructed …
 

Hilbert naturally disagreed. "Pure existence proofs have been the most important landmarks in the historical development of our science," he maintained. (Reid p. 155)
 

Brouwer refused to accept the logical principle of the excluded middle.


... In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)


... The debate seemed to weaken: mathematicians, logicians and engineers continue to use the law of excluded middle (and double negation) in their daily work.

(Wikipedia, "Law of excluded middle")
 

 

Well, I don't claim to be a logician.  When I get to the predicate calculus, my mind boggles.

 

 

Talking about physics with its eternal quest for a TOE: History shows that every time "the last remaining questions" were about to be answered, a previously unknown new world opened up.

 

Dark matter, anyone? How about dark energy?

 

If the Divine is synonymous with the Infinite, it makes sense that we can forever approach it, but never reach it.

 

And there's also no need to hurry. Phew...

[Daniel]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:29 AM, Ajay0 said:

 

The experience is that of nondual perception that comes with emptiness or awareness with the simultaneous cessation or slowing of mental traffic. 

 

Ah.  No, I've never experienced anything like that.  The closest analog would be pure reflexive actions or decision making lacking any rational thought.  But my mind is active and the inner voice is still narrating.  It's just not 'driving'.

 

 

Quote

In nondual perception, there is the ability to use functional speech with dualistic terms, without being under the grip of images or words or past.

 

 Krishna taught about non-duality to Arjuna in the midst of the battlefield if you may recall, while persuading him to perform his duties as a warrior.

 

Ramana Maharshi, usually silent, was vocal about allowing animals or birds to enter the ashram in spite of opposition to them from his fastidious disciples, and he referred to the animals as 'he' or 'she' instead of 'it', humanizing them.

 

The examples of these masters shows that nondual perception is not in opposition to functional speech depicting dualistic terms. 

 

The perception ceases to be nondual when the psychological past or personal self takes over with its emotional likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions. 

 

Then the 'you' or 'they'  will be related to the lower self or 'I' unconsciously with corresponding past memories of an emotional content in the background dictating the relationship, rather than impersonal awareness.

 

Since the personal self or ego is  bound to be insecure and fragile due to its transitory emotional content , it is bound to drift in the direction of strife and violence in the long run.

 

Apparently conflicts have the hue of duality to it due to their emotionally charged nature. The 'I' or 'us' is emphasized in opposition to 'he/she/you' or 'them', as well as other labels related to political ideology, language, gender, religion, race, sexuality, country and so on.

 

And consequently such dualistic terms gain an unnecessary bad reputation in spite of their functional utility as in work relations, gender-based washrooms, passports or normal conversation.

 

In nondual perception or impersonal awareness,  such dualistic terms remain functional without the emotional charge associated with unconscious dualistic perception and conflict.
 

 

Ok.  thank you.  I suppose my objection is to the notion of "you cannot..." because I expect that from the non-dual perspective each and everyone already has, and is.  The word "cannot" the concept of "you cannot, but I have" is self-contradictory in a non-dual environment.  This is because if all is one, literally, if any has achieved, then all have achieved.  If any have not achieved, then all have not achieved.  

 

Put simply, am I misunderstanding?  From the non-dual perspective: any=all? 

 

From the non-dual perspective:  if you cannot, I also cannot because there is no 'you' or 'I'.  There is only 'US'? simultaneous?  From the non-dual perspective if I have claimed attainment of the non-dual perspective then absolutely everyone has attained it with me?  Otherwise non-dual does not exist?

 

If so, if a person says, "you cannot... " relating to a non-dual perception, that indicates the speaker, themself, has not achieved the non-dual themself.  If they did, then the one they are speaking to "has already" by virtue of the speaker's attainment, because...if they had...  there would be no distinction between the speaker and the one to whom they are speaking.  And then... they would never-never say "you cannot..." because that would mean "I have not..."

 

Do you see what I mean?  Am I making sense?  

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Michael Sternbach]

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Michael Sternbach “The man who has a dig-pitting unit will most likely have a mobile phone in his pocket.”

 

—Sun Tzu, Twitter Post, 2018.

 

Fascinating!

 

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

your comment on 22/08/23. “Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.” as an aside, are you implying that the findings of archaeological study in general are inaccurate? 

 

Good catch! On the one hand, I was alluding to an old polemic between Nungers and me regarding the existence of prehistoric civilisations (a theory that I support, BTW).

 

But...

 

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

[i meant ‘pit-digging’, not ‘dog-pitting’… or did i..?]

 

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

nah ... he is implying that I am an 'inaccurate human ' . 

 

I think I  better wear a gold plaque around my neck wen I get buried  ;   " Not normal ! "

 

This interpretation is valid as well! At any rate, you would be part of the underground.

 

But then, so are all Aussies as seen from the Northern hemisphere. 

 

Nuff said now. I don't wish to spoil the fun of the future exegetists deciphering all the intricacies of my multi layered post.

[C T]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Well.  I disagree.  In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates".  Although, those last two are controversial.  These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer.  And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else.

 

For example, I have used rocks as hammers.  And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm.  The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example.

 

 

I vote no.  It's always and forever a hammer.  Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer.  What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name?  And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week?  We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything.  But of course... the child would not accept it.

 

Anyway... 

 

 

OK, well.   Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress.  This is where I was when I asked the question. 

 

Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer.  I'll put that down, put it away.  Poof.  Bye-bye.  There's two truths.  Conventional / unconventional.  Both are true.  Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye.  Those two truths are gone.  They're not true at all.  They don't even exist.  I've never heard of them.  Hammer?  what's that?  I've never heard of it.  I have no idea what that is.  I have no words to describe it.  Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction.  Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction.  Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Nothing produces a reaction.  There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me.  And I am completely catatonic.

 

That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths.  But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me.  Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals.

 

So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept.  But it's not too important.  I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time".  ( in quotes, because time is wonky )

 

But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it.  But, there is no pressure from me to do so.

 

 

No probs. I didn't find your objections meaningful either. 

 

A reiteration: the label 'hammer' is a conventional designate. As are all labels for the myriad things in existence. It's impossible to argue about a thing's existence/non existence and logical positions based on labels alone. 

 

A hammer contains numerous non-hammer properties. A conglomeration process needs to happen; various other things needs to come together for a hammer to materialise. No magic involved. So a hammer is a hammer only by convention. On an absolute basis, it can only be said to have a certain 'hammer-ness' about it. Say it were to be melted and returned to its base property. This in no way negates its hammer-ness. 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Well.  I disagree.  In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates".  Although, those last two are controversial.  These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer.  And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else.

 

For example, I have used rocks as hammers.  And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm.  The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example.

 

 

I vote no.  It's always and forever a hammer.  Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer.  What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name?  And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week?  We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything.  But of course... the child would not accept it.

 

Anyway... 

 

 

OK, well.   Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress.  This is where I was when I asked the question. 

 

Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer.  I'll put that down, put it away.  Poof.  Bye-bye.  There's two truths.  Conventional / unconventional.  Both are true.  Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye.  Those two truths are gone.  They're not true at all.  They don't even exist.  I've never heard of them.  Hammer?  what's that?  I've never heard of it.  I have no idea what that is.  I have no words to describe it.  Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction.  Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction.  Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Nothing produces a reaction.  There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me.  And I am completely catatonic.

 

That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths.  But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me.  Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals.

 

So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept.  But it's not too important.  I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time".  ( in quotes, because time is wonky )

 

But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it.  But, there is no pressure from me to do so.

 

 

I agree with you -- a hammer will be a hammer no matter what.

 

And yes, your forearm can become a hammer in conjunction with a rock, temporarily. (And if you are a martial artist, you may even be able to substitute your fist for the rock.)

 

I am no longer sure about phones, though. Since I am using my so-called phone also for reading, writing, sending and receiving text messages, painting, searching the Internet, playing video games, as a torch, etc. Using it actually as a phone has become rather the exception than the rule. And yet I am calling it "my phone".

 

This may indeed be a matter of convention.

 

(Let's not go into Swiss pocket knives for now.)

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi CT,

 

55 minutes ago, C T said:

 

No probs. I didn't find your objections meaningful either. 

 

A reiteration: the label 'hammer' is a conventional designate. As are all labels for the myriad things in existence. It's impossible to argue about a thing's existence/non existence and logical positions based on labels alone. 

 

That's a typical Buddhist position which I've always had an issue with -- despite my involvement with Zen. I wonder, when was it first brought up in the old texts? Can it be supposed to be one of Gautama's original teachings?

 

It seems to be at odds with my Platonist views.

 

According to Platonism, tangible things are the concrete manifestations of 'ideas' that exist in the divine mind. It is these 'ideas' that are endowing the ten-thousand things with their shape and form.

 

Quote

A hammer contains numerous non-hammer properties. A conglomeration process needs to happen; various other things needs to come together for a hammer to materialise. No magic involved. So a hammer is a hammer only by convention. On an absolute basis, it can only be said to have a certain 'hammer-ness' about it.

 

I would argue that in its 'hammer-ness', it actually manifests the archetype of the hammer.

 

Quote

Say it were to be melted and returned to its base property. This in no way negates its hammer-ness. 

 

But it would! You can't have a hammer without 'hammer-ness'.

 

No more 'hammer-ness' = no more hammer.

 

In the Platonist view, once it melted, it returned to the state of formless 'prime matter', and that's that.

 

Of course, you could take this basic matter and form it into a screwdriver. But then the result would be a screwdriver, and no longer a hammer, I'm afraid. One's for nails, the other one for screws. Same matter, but different form.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[Ajay0]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Eudaimonia in the eastern context, is similar to what is known as Dharma or living based on values. 

 

You have done it again ;    given a term a wrong definition and attempt to argue about it from that wrong definition .

 

Eudaimonia is NOT 'similar to dharma'  !  Two of its aspects however are significant in eudamonia  but  a range of other aspects are also included that bring about that state .

 

The performance of duties and Dharma is bound to result in happiness as per eastern philosophy, due to the austerity in duty. 

Dharma is one of the four purusharthas or objectives of human life.

 

Sure .  Bit that is immaterial to my argument because, as you just said , it brings about (mere ) happiness . And as you just pointed out it is but one of the four .... just as it is but one of the many in eudaimonia .

 

 

By adherence to Dharma through value based living and self-discipline, worldly happiness can be maximised without crossing any moral boundaries .

 

 However the happiness of Dharma is also considered inferior to the bliss of Moksha or enlightenment. It is the adherents of Dharma however who have the highest chance of attaining enlightenment. 

 

Dude !  You are trying to convince me by showing me what I already know .  You are STILL missing the point .

 

I will trrty again with you ;  Eudaimonia is a state that abides beyond and through  the happiness / unhappiness scale .

 

That triangular arrangement   :   happiness < -------------- > unghappiness   is a 'base line' of a triangle ,  'eudaimonia exists above that base line as an 'apex' . Some have termed that state 'bliss'  , other have a different term for it .

 

But that does not mean that this apex is the same as all the others that use this same triangular imprint for energies interacting on the IDEAL plane .

 

I can  include a paper on it  below if you care to read about this universal pattern  ( and yes it does include your 'Brahma'  ... its in the Brahma , Vishnu, Shiva 'triangle'  .... and each triangle of ideal forces causes a manifestation breakthrough 'down'  into another level ... a 'pendant' to the triangle  (  in this case , look at  one of the associated Goddess , or all of the multitude of them  ) , creating the 'four fold ' world of the elements ... or since we are on a daoist forum ... see Ch 42 TTC .

 

  NOW  you can see  (  ?  )   I am actually affirming what you say about a higher level originating  but being beyond the world of duality ; extremes of a thing  ... a line with two ends  etc >

 

 

 You are jumping to conclusions due to poor understanding as usual.

 

No , YOU just affirmed you do not understand the state at all due to you wrongly defining it above . I guess you rushed off to do do a quick google search on it and got partial information from someone who has not researched the state properly  ... and that applies to most modern psychologists as well, being a fairly recent inclusion in the field . I have only encountered two papers on it that seem to have a broader understanding  of the state .

 

Again ... I am saying it is above tghe base line of happiness : unhappiness  ... but there is no need to worry or feel threatened that this implies it is trying to take over your own concepts of a higher spiritual , and Vedic understanding of an ultimate 'above perspective' .

 

You have spent  a lot of time here arguing due to your YOUR poor understanding  ..... it isnt about my poor understanding of Vedanta at all, its about your poor understanding of eudaimonia and your assumption that I am talking about a Vedic arrangement ) although that does follow a similar arrangement  ... ti doesnt mean that it is the same thing though, an assumption that you appear to have fallen into .

 

Its like You have said    Brahma is a state above both  Shiva and Vishnu .   And I have said   ' Yes, like  Dao is  state or concept above yin and yang .  And you are arguing that   Dao is not Brahma ... or trying to prove  Brahma is 'better' than dao , or different  ( which it is , but it isnt 'wrong' )

 

 Those familiar with the ancient philosophies of yoga and advaita can understand what I am talking here.

 

I  am familiar with those and I do know what you are talking about , you have just misapplied the knowledge  as you dont recognize the Universal pattern ; its in everything  from the various cultures valid philosophies and cosmology ( Vedanta , Christian , Jewish, etc ), nature , color perception , physics ,  etc etc .   I can easily demonstrate this if you want to read my  article on it .

 

and also you can cut the  Indian ego :  ' oh dear this uneducated westerner in the eastern arts'  bullshit  and tighten up your understanding and argument , before  you  try to pull that one here .

 

  10 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

You are also claiming that I am unfamiliar with the state. But if you claim that I am unfamiliar, that implies that you are familiar with the state of nondual perception, and can identify the errors. 

 

What ?   No .  Just because you are  not familiar with eudaimonia    ( most people, nearly everyone is not ... so this is not a judgement or anything  and you have clearly demonstrated you are not familar with nor understand it )  does not equate to me being unfamiliar with the state of non dual perception ... what weird 'logic' .

 

So why don't you describe your own experience of nondual perception here, other than drug related hallucinations. 

 

Weave dodge and come out here !  Then ask me that question ?        Is this 'Indian logic'  ? 

 

I am sure there are 'experts' all over this site that can help you here  . and I am not even sure you realize how silly that question is ? 

 

How about  I explain color to you  , right here , when we are both color blind, using a black and white font and no color change option ....  hmmmmm ?

 

 

I am contrasting worldly 'happiness' with the bliss of the Self here.  What are you referring to !

 

I am referring to what I originally referred to when you popped up and started trying to refute it as you seem to think that any state above the happiness : unhappiness base line seems to threaten your 'Brahma'  icon .

 

 

 There are higher degrees of happiness like ecstasy and higher degrees of unhappiness too, like grief. But those who were grieving have also moved on to higher states of happiness as well and vice versa, clearly showing their nature of being opposites

 

yes and that is your other issue ;   I was staing that grief is a much higher scale than mere unhappiness , but that too started off another reaction , but now you appear to be agreeing with this .

 

its quiet simple ; if eudamonia state can exist within  any fluctuation of the happiness unhappiness base line , then it is above it .

 

The same as depression ; if it exists no matter how happy oir unhappy you are ... then it is below that baseline  ( I am trying to be rather unrealistically simple here for you)  .

 

Extreme happiness or extreme unhappiness are also opposites, if you want  to put it that way, for better comprehension.

 

If you had to tell me that ... you rally have not got what I have been talking about  ... you should really read my article ... but thats the thing , it can be supplied , but it can also be ignored and the misunderstood argument continue  .... ' thats life'  .

 

 

But the lower self is already established and considered to be illusory !  What is the truth or benchmark to contrast it with, as in the Self or Buddha nature or any description of your own !

 

I have  a 6 part A4 sheets stuck together with a schemata  for that ... I cant post it here .  briefly the 'lower self' is down the bottom of my diagram  ( which is based on a sort of adapted qabbalistic tree of life , with the sphere of Mars adjusted to its rightful position - considering psychology ) and consists of one of these triangular arrangements , representing the core of 'self' , the 'unconscious'  consisting of triangle around the Moon sphere with a  Venus : Mars baseline  with  Mercury at the apex . Mercury is also connected up through this triangle to the next one above through the Sun - mercury has that ability, to go through the 3 worlds ; heaven earth and hell , if one likes  , much like the power of the raven .  Then the unconscious begins to approach the Solar 'self' and the formation of the 'ego' begins , but all this is modified by the lowest sphere that it manifests in ; the environment , all coming together to create the personna .  It goes further up of course beyond the Sun  and looks at 'above ' or spiritual and and eventually cosmological influences , and also some spheres include genetic information that comes physically . And this is just a  small part of my 'what  constitutes the self ' schemata .

 

it was an interesting question you posed . but more worthy of its own thread . and it should be obvious I am contrary to the premise of this thread ; ie. YES there is  a state beyond the polarities  ... its just  that most of us are caught up in them .

 

and my systems are not just waffle, they are not only observable in nature nut applicable in nature , in all sorts of ways .

 

 Consider all the difficulties arguments and fights that can go on in a relationship , or just between men and women . No matter what you do , it will not be properly resolved   (unless one retires or gives up  their position... but that can hold inner resentment  ), one has to get off that Mars Venus baseline . archetypal opposition and rise to the Mercurial perspective and operate from there .

 

 

But I had asked what you understood by the Self, which is non-conceptual in nature. How can you talk about the conceptual illusory self then as an answer or reply!

You asked what I understood as the self   NOT what I understood as the  non conceptual self  .   Most people have some concept  about the self  .... no one has a concept about the non-conceptual self .

 

or maybe you do ?  Maybe you are some guru that can have concepts about  the non- conceptual ? 

Yes, I can see that.

 

 How can you talk of equating the Self with this or that when you don't even have a clue on what the true Self is, as per nondual or advaitan philosophy !

 

OH  well... exuuuuuuuse me   for sharing wisdom that is beyond your personal and cultural belief systems  ! 

 

 

 

How could YOU try to debate me on eudaimonia  when you don't even have a clue on what  it is , nor on its originating ancient Greek philosophy and its intersection with modern western psychology ? 

 

And how can you realistically expect me to answer your question related to the Self and Buddha nature, when you don't even know what they are in the first place, and have mere uncertain speculations to offer on what they are !

 

And now you are saying that one person can not answer another persons questions if the person that asked the question did not already know the answer  !     

 

and it was YOU that asked me that question !

 

.... DUDE !      

 

AND  I said   they can be the same IF they are both illusory ... which you danced around and avoided ... no wonder , as its an unassailable position .

 

Without understanding the basics, you will only jump to greater confusions and never-ending mazes of superficial speculation. Good luck with that. 

 

Ahhh ... thats the problem with you  ....... you might see better with your  sunglasses off .

 

 

 

 

Okay. Let us agree to disagree then. 

 

[C T]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Hi CT,

 

 

That's a typical Buddhist position which I've always had an issue with -- despite my involvement with Zen. I wonder, when was it first brought up in the old texts? Can it be supposed to be one of Gautama's original teachings?

 

It seems to be at odds with my Platonist views.

 

According to Platonism, tangible things are the concrete manifestations of 'ideas' that exist in the divine mind. It is these 'ideas' that are endowing the ten-thousand things with their shape and form.

 

 

I would argue that in its 'hammer-ness', it actually manifests the archetype of the hammer.

 

 

But it would! You can't have a hammer without 'hammer-ness'.

 

No more 'hammer-ness' = no more hammer.

 

In the Platonist view, once it melted, it returned to the state of formless 'prime matter', and that's that.

 

Of course, you could take this basic matter and form it into a screwdriver. But then the result would be a screwdriver, and no longer a hammer, I'm afraid. One's for nails, the other one for screws. Same matter, but different form.

 

Hammer, nail, screwdriver... know them as mere labels. Labels do not have intrinsic reality. 

 

A melted substance is still a substance. While it may have altered its form, its potential remains valid and cannot be said to be formless. The -ness aspect is always present, regardless of what it transforms out of or in to. 

 

The thusness of things makes allowance for expansive non-dual insights to arise. This insight is a prerequisite to gnow beyond fabrications of subject/object separations. Without it, we are stuck within a paradigm where superficial appearances are regarded as permanent and unchanging, which in effect is a type of delusion because the assumption is that we bums at least acknowledge the truth of change permeating all of existence. 

 

 

[Ajay0]

On 8/21/2023 at 1:49 PM, galen_burnett said:

@Ajay0 19/08/22

 

Your own experience may well resonate with the teachings of a ‘Buddha’ [read as, “any professor of Enlightenment”] This is because the ‘Buddha’ is clever and wily in forming the illusion of Bliss for you: he validates experiences of yours of harmony and peace and oneness that you get through following his instructions on meditation—this is how he buys your trust, as well as by utilising his smooth and charismatic personality—; then, once you trust him, he says “and if you keep going you will get into Heaven”—everything he has said so far has turned out to be true, so why wouldn’t this also be? the beings who devised these mind-prisons are very very clever and have no-doubt spent thousands if not millions of years manipulating races such as the homo-sapiens throughout the universe. 

 

 

 

 This shows clearly that you have not done your scholarly due diligence or homework, and have faulty premises or weak foundations for your arguments, and this is why you are unable to perceive, and more importantly  attain the joy of the Buddha nature present within yourself. 

 

Buddha in the Kesamutti Sutta have emphasized independent investigation and knowing for oneself, instead of depending upon the words of others...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesamutti_Sutta

 

The Kesamutti Sutta states :

Quote

 

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.' 

 

 

He emphasizes independent investigation and inquiry in the Ghanavyuha sutra as well.

 

'O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me.' ~ Buddha ( ghanavyuha sutra )(Sutra of Dense Array)
 

He is not a salesman promising heaven in return for blind faith in him or his teachings.  Independent and critical examination of his teachings and practices is also part of the Buddhist doctrine, so that faith if developed, will be based on solid experiences of one's own, and not just others testimony. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Ajay0

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, C T said:

 

No probs. I didn't find your objections meaningful either. 

 

 

Quote

 

A reiteration: the label 'hammer' is a conventional designate. As are all labels for the myriad things in existence. It's impossible to argue about a thing's existence/non existence and logical positions based on labels alone. 

 

Nothing changes about the "non-deformable-heavy-head-attached-to-a-rigid-lever" if we change its label.  That is the basis of language.

 

None the less, it-is-what-it-is.  Yes the label is meaningless.  Semantics.    My favorite example?  A dog ( דג ) is a fish in hebrew.  So what?  The only benefit to pointing this out is the one who is claiming "enlightenment" is able to reject answering any challenging question because they have selectively denied that words have meaning. 

 

Quote

A hammer contains numerous non-hammer properties. A conglomeration process needs to happen; various other things needs to come together for a hammer to materialise. No magic involved.

 

Who said anything about magic?  Oh yeah, I did magically 'poof' when asked to "put-away" the two truths.  My question was, very simply, did I misunderstand the intention and the application of "moving-beyond" and/or "putting-away" the two-truths.  And I thought I asked respectfully.  I think it's an honest question.  Even if it remains unanswered.  Even if it's best remaining unanswered.  It's still an honest respectful question.

 

And, quite honestly, this is what it seems that Nagarjuna is teaching.  It can't be answered.  And the consequence of this is, it cannot ever be described as good, beneficial, useful, skillful, healthy, pleasant, or an ideal.  It cannot even be described as "moving-beyond".  No gestures are appropriate, a knowing smile, a nod, a wink, none of that is true.

 

 

Quote

So a hammer is a hammer only by convention. On an absolute basis, it can only be said to have a certain 'hammer-ness' about it.

 

Which can be defined as a statement of conjunctions, disjunction, and/or negations (boolean AND, OR, NOT) in any language you choose.  The word "hammer" is a convention, but nothing is changing about those fundemental qualities.

 

Quote

Say it were to be melted and returned to its base property. This in no way negates its hammer-ness. 

 

Sure it does.  Once it's melted it doesn't have those qualities. And yes, hammer-ness remains.  The attributes which define the hammer are always and forever.

 

So, we've just agreed on conventional reality.  So what?  

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The question is about "moving beyond" the two truths.  I think I understand the desire to deny any and all defining attributes ( what's being labeled as ultimate ) when it is partnered simultaneously with acknowledging each and everything's fundemental qualities ( what is being labeled as conventional ).

 

What I don't understand is what it means to move beyond this other than "catatonic, vacuous, sunyata".   I understand including it as a fundemental quality / attribute of the "two-truths" concept, because, if the concept exists, then its partner, the negation, "no-two-truths" also must exist.  But this still cannot be lifted up as an ideal.  As soon as that happens, then the two-truths are no longer being negated.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

I agree with you -- a hammer will be a hammer no matter what.

 

And yes, your forearm can become a hammer in conjunction with a rock, temporarily. (And if you are a martial artist, you may even be able to substitute your fist for the rock.)

 

I am no longer sure about phones, though. Since I am using my so-called phone also for reading, writing, sending and receiving text messages, painting, searching the Internet, playing video games, as a torch, etc. Using it actually as a phone has become rather the exception than the rule. And yet I am calling it "my phone".

 

This may indeed be a matter of convention.

 

(Let's not go into Swiss pocket knives for now.)

 

It's a handheld computer.

 

Here's a very strange, kind of fun, movie about the multi-purpose human.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_Man  Have you seen it?  It looks like it might be on Hulu.  But I don't have that service, so I cannot confirm.

[Mark Foote]

On 8/21/2023 at 1:19 AM, galen_burnett said:

You and the ‘Buddha’ will say i have not gone deep enough—so the deeper we go the stronger our microscope—to see it for myself; you have not ‘attained’ it yourself or else you would not be arguing with me like this, so you have also been told that you “just need to go deeper”. Can’t you see how uncannily similar that is to the rhetoric of a scam-artist? “Just keep going, I promise you it is there at the end…and in the meantime just keep giving me your time and energy”, “well okay, if you say it’s there then it must be…”. It is indeed a very clever ploy to persuade you all that “thinking is wrong”, “thinking leads you away from Bliss”, whereas in reality he just doesn’t want you to think because if you did his spell over you would break—very clever indeed, because his argument is even supported by the very tangible fact that often peace and tranquility and good feeling can be temporarily felt through stilling the mind. 
 

There's a place in the Pali sermons where followers of another teaching, possibly Jainism, admonish their disciples against going to hear the Gautamid speak.  He's handsome, and ever-so-good at logic, they say--you'll be seduced by his presence, so don't go, they say.  Something like that.  

Can't find it at the moment, oh well.  

The Buddha did not promise bliss, so far as I know, in the record of his teachings that historians consider to be the most accurate (the first four compilations of sermons, in the Pali Canon).  He didn't discount logic.  He did emphasize that there's a happiness apart from sensual desire and apart from unskilled states of mind, apart from the pleasant things of life.  That's all.

His voice in the first four Nikayas is like no other in the literature of the world, so far as I know.  Not even his major disciples come close.  Same is true for the voice attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.  Yuanwu in "Zen Letters", also exceptional.

 

[steve]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:42 AM, galen_burnett said:

your reply to myself on 21/08/23. your contradiction was at once saying your spiritual path is one of ‘non-avoidance’ and that it is the path to ‘liberation’

 

I understand your point and maintain that contradictions can give us an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding, particularly in the spiritual arena. Rather than looking at them as problems, the quote I offered suggests they can be opportunities.

Everyone experiences challenges, it’s not optional. The only option we have is how we deal with them. We can avoid them but that rarely leads to a long term solution. Over time they tend to gain power and eventually catch up to us. Another approach is to face them with full awareness and openness. When we face them with awareness and openness we tend to have access to more possible solutions and if there is no solution, we can stay with the experience and eventually find a way to be OK without one.

 

The whole subject surrounding impermanence is fascinating and, for me at least, worthy of considerable reflection, practice, and study. Impermanence relates to all things that are conditional. When considering that which is unconditional, the same rules don’t really apply. For example, we often see “space” used as a metaphor for the ground of being, particularly in dzogchen. This is because space has unique and particular characteristics that help us to come to a deeper understanding of the unconditional. These characteristics include the fact that space is indestructible, unbounded, unborn, undying, has no edge or center, and so forth. When we consider these characteristics, especially that space is indestructible, how can we say that it is impermanent? So this is where the idea comes in that while everything in our field of experience is impermanent, the fundamental ground of being is not. 

 

Regarding the prolonged or permanent nature of liberation, it has to do with the fact that the liberation referred to in dzogchen is not related to a subject being liberated from an object or a set of circumstances. It is more related to the sense of individual identity shifting as a consequence of non-dual realization. This is a long term shift. It’s not that one no longer encounters problems but rather that we don’t identify with the subject as strongly so that problems tend to come and go without causing much turbulence.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts on an interesting topic. Thanks for your comments.

[liminal_luke]

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV

Edited August 24, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Michael Sternbach]

10 hours ago, C T said:

 

Hammer, nail, screwdriver... know them as mere labels. Labels do not have intrinsic reality. 

 

So you are saying that we are labeling things based on convention, and thus attributing a 'reality' to them that they don't intrinsically have.

 

However, I think what actually happened was that we -- as a species -- found distinct objects and beings in our environment and started giving them names for easy reference.

 

My dogs understand very well what a bone is and what its specific attributes are without knowing what it's called.

 

That said, I certainly don't deny that our convention based concepts tend to structure and limit our perception -- they do so to a large extent --, but to infer from this that the objects of our perception have no intrinsic reality seems to be quite a stretch.

 

And I would still like to know who first expressly came up with this idea, and when. If anyone here knows, I would appreciate a hint.

 

Quote

A melted substance is still a substance. While it may have altered its form, its potential remains valid and cannot be said to be formless. The -ness aspect is always present, regardless of what it transforms out of or in to. 

 

The melted metal of our hammer indeed has the potential to become a lot of different things, as long as it's in the formless state.

 

But a potential hammer won't help you sticking actual nails into the wall -- trust me, you'll need an actual hammer for the job.

 

The Platonist philosophy I referred to is well aware of the difference between potential and actuality, and looks at them as a polarity. Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

 

Quote

The thusness of things makes allowance for expansive non-dual insights to arise. This insight is a prerequisite to gnow beyond fabrications of subject/object separations. Without it, we are stuck within a paradigm where superficial appearances are regarded as permanent and unchanging, which in effect is a type of delusion because the assumption is that we bums at least acknowledge the truth of change permeating all of existence. 

 

That's a non-sequitur. To any thougthful individual, it will be rather obvious that little in the manifest world is permanent -- perhaps not even the manifest world itself.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

 

[Michael Sternbach]

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

 This shows clearly that you have not done your scholarly due diligence or homework, and have faulty premises or weak foundations for your arguments, and this is why you are unable to perceive, and more importantly  attain the joy of the Buddha nature present within yourself. 

 

Buddha in the Kesamutti Sutta have emphasized independent investigation and knowing for oneself, instead of depending upon the words of others...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesamutti_Sutta

 

The Kesamutti Sutta states :

 

He emphasizes independent investigation and inquiry in the Ghanavyuha sutra as well.

 

'O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me.' ~ Buddha ( ghanavyuha sutra )(Sutra of Dense Array)
 

He is not a salesman promising heaven in return for blind faith in him or his teachings.  Independent and critical examination of his teachings and practices is also part of the Buddhist doctrine, so that faith if developed, will be based on solid experiences of one's own, and not just others testimony. 

 

Yes, that's the theory, and it's indeed a very commendable position.

 

In practice, though, Buddhists tend to cling to their teacher/master's words as much as the followers of any other religion do. IME.

[Michael Sternbach]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It's a handheld computer.

 

Here's a very strange, kind of fun, movie about the multi-purpose human.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_Man  Have you seen it?  It looks like it might be on Hulu.  But I don't have that service, so I cannot confirm.

 

I don't have Hulu either, but I will look out for that movie.

 

Thanks.

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV

 

Words of wisdom, Luke!

 

How we conceptualize our chosen path can, however, to some degree define the experiences that we are open to or attract. And the concepts we make can sometimes turn out to be restrictions getting in the way of the actual experience. 

 

But I can sit down and do zazen without agonizing over hammers and screwdrivers, nails and screws -- thanks Heavens.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Classic.

 

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV

 

This is the point.

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

When I am able to hold this idea and maintain it, it's an ongoing blissful state, and it's close, oh.  it's so close, it's like th air i breath every second of every day.  I don't need to do anything, its just happening.  When Ajay asked about my experience, I went to the store and reached out with my peripheral vision, and just basked in the blissful tempo of life and all it has to offer.  That way I could write about it.

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill.

 

Generally, I would avoid discussing it with people whom I know, for certain, are adherents to this sort of mindset.  But here we are on a public forum, and a kindred spirit pops-in to say, "Hey, have you noticed that this so-called-enlightenment is kind of a shell-game.  it's not what it appears to be on the surface?"  So, I'm here supporting that person, because, if they are like me, then these ideas of sunyata as the only-way are kind of distracting.  And knowing they have friends who relate and understand out there can cut down on the noise.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

 

More like:

 

The sixth patriarch of Zen in China pointed directly to the mind moving:

 

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: “The flag is moving.”
 

The other said: “The wind is moving.”
 

The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He told them: “Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving.”

(“Gateless Gate” collection)

 

To me, what the sixth patriarch said was, pay attention to the singularity of self-awareness that moves, not to the flag or the wind.

 

(Not the Wind, Not the Flag)

 

 

So, pay attention to the placement of attention by the movement of breath, the singularity of self-awareness that can move, not the hammer, the nails, or the wall.  It's not that they don't exist, it's that they are irrelevant when action comes out of the placement of mind rather than the exercise of will.

 

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Hi CT,

 

 

That's a typical Buddhist position which I've always had an issue with -- despite my involvement with Zen. I wonder, when was it first brought up in the old texts? Can it be supposed to be one of Gautama's original teachings?

 

It seems to be at odds with my Platonist views.

 

According to Platonism, tangible things are the concrete manifestations of 'ideas' that exist in the divine mind. It is these 'ideas' that are endowing the ten-thousand things with their shape and form.

 

 

I would argue that in its 'hammer-ness', it actually manifests the archetype of the hammer.

 

 

But it would! You can't have a hammer without 'hammer-ness'.

 

No more 'hammer-ness' = no more hammer.

 

In the Platonist view, once it melted, it returned to the state of formless 'prime matter', and that's that.

 

Of course, you could take this basic matter and form it into a screwdriver. But then the result would be a screwdriver, and no longer a hammer, I'm afraid. One's for nails, the other one for screws. Same matter, but different form.

 

 

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

 

Okay. Let us agree to disagree then. 

 

 

So after all that .... you are going for a tie ?    No way mate .

 

You aren't gettin off the hook that easy .... with a simple 'jingle saying' .   It wasnt a matter of a disagreement , it was a matter of you  doing what I outlined  in my last post that you quoted . 

 

But I shall accept your 'retirement'  from the converse .....  when one's boat has too many holes to fix in it .... it is best to abandon it . 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

 

Whats a 'fruit cage '  ? 

 

I was singing this outside gardening , to  Mrs Honey  who was inside .....  'making honey  '    ( see signature ) and I stopped myself  ... hang on ... what ?

 

" Open up your fruit cage

and I will be your honey bee

open up your fruit cage

where the best fruits gonna be  ...