Nikolai1

Ok we'll go back to the unique Alsatian with an infinite number of traits and attributes. How do we know which of them logically allow it to be called a dog, and which of them don't. Does the Alsatian's address logically qualify? You've suggested that it might do in some situations. Is is then wrong to deny the Labrador In the next village dog status because it lives at the wrong address?

So why is the hairiness if this being called Tricksy used to define the concept 'dog'?

Don't worry about the stolen concept for now. I know that we are both equally guilty of that and will show you where you are and where I am. But for now, lets go back to the dog. Why isn't the Alsatians address part of the genus dog? I assume that the logic you love can be verbally stated because that, you say, is how knowledge and rationality spread and benefit the people.

Just to say you have already avoided one question about the logical approach by suggesting that our logic may not be consciosuly or explicitly stated. This allows you to move on to explicitly defining another concept, intuition, to which the same will happen. You will say that intuition needs to be understood ith reference to another concept. This is what Derrida called deference. My advice would be to stick to the poodles and the alsatians address.

Reality is always a flow of thought and feeling, so we can't define intuition thus. My question is which we should seek to cultivate and which we should seek to reject. Is it correct to say that we recollect when we understand, or is corect to see that we understand through developing concepts?

You are saying that mental images, sounds and textures arise, but how do you know they are 'stored'? Let's assume that they might be intuitions. Why would this be a false step?

When we take any given German Shepherd, it has a well-nigh infinite set of characteristics. Physical, emotional, bevioural traits are being demonstrated in each moment, and each one is uniquely configured. By what process do we decide which of these are common with the Poodle? For example, in my street there is one of each. They are a different colour and size, but they do have the same address? Does their shared address justify placing them in the same genus? If not, why not?

Given that all individuals are unique how do you know, logically, that it is related to the genus?

There is a notion that goes back to Socrates that the logic of the statement is of secondary importance when it comes to its understanding. That is, understanding is always a process of recollection. If our own intuitive faculties are in good working order than we can understand our interlocutor's meaning even with the faultiest logic at the verbal level. The concept, you see, is always subjectively defined. There is no automatic and necessary correspondence between the symbolised and the words we use to symbolise it. It is impossible for us to know from experience what our interlocutor means when he says 'dog' because the situation and the mental state of the person is unique and unprecedented. In order to understand, we need a very pure intuitive connection to our inner knowing, (or Ideal memory) as Plato would put it. Chldren tend to have this in very good measure which is why they are very quick to learn languages. As you've no doubt gathered, learning is something that we becomes worse at over time. Our intution fades becuase we start to believe in logic as a means to learn, rather than intuition. This belief interrupts our intuition. To develop logic is a form of corruption which weakend and ennervates the understanding rather than helps it. Our intution only remains high-functioning into adults in those excanges where we believe that no logic is necessary. This relates to what we believe as simple. everyday concepts like 'dog'. As a general rule, it is best to follow the ancient Chinese advice to unlearn our learning and then we shall lways be without confusion.

If we pursue this then it will derail this thread. I'll start a new one OK?

You have nothing to teach him then!

I really enjoyed Michael Sternbach's teaching on the Tarot: http://thedaobums.com/topic/38456-my-theory-on-the-1111-phenomenon/

Hi Karl, Just out of interest, could you give an example of a clear definition of a concept or thing? Something that passes your own test of a good definition?

The question presupposes a discrete entity called mind. This is therefore a question in the dualistic mode and the only meaningful response is in the same mode. This can either be: 1) Yes, IT is. 2) no, IT isn't. And because we have answered in dualistic mode, our answer is open to dualistic agreement or diagreement. One way round this, would be stay silent to such an answer, which I didn't do, but perhaps Bud Jetsun will!

Really enjoying these posts, thanks! Has your path led you to value any practices in particular?

Two awesome posts Bud Jetsun - thank you!

Fear IS ego IS hatred IS suffering IS illusion IS greed IS desire. These all coincide together and form the basic worldview that the intelligent try to escape. One can't be placed at the root of any of the others. They all imply each other and go together.

Hi Bindi, Even though it sounds paradoxical, strengthening the ego and removing it are exactly the same thing. It is also true to say that weakening the ego and removing it is the same thing. The trouble is, we never ever, ever lose our fundamental, primal sense of being a person. If you call this fundamental sense 'ego', if that's the name you give it, then the ego will become ever stronger, richer and healthier and more loving as it moves out of its sense of constriction in time and space. But, so often, the ego is assumed to be by definition to be that which is confined by time and space. So clearly, if this your definition, this ego will weaken as our Higher Self grows stronger. All mental ill-health, in all its varieties, arises when the person's identity is overly confined in time and space. This is the recipe for mental suffering. This situtation can be called having 'too an strong ego', or a too 'weak unintegrated ego' depending on how you define ego.

Although it may not seem obvious to you, your inwillingness to accept it is a tacit acceptance that it might be true. In most conventional understanding, the two perspectives (I am source vs I am not) are split: we imagine that we have powers in some areas, but are powerlessness in others. Those who have intellectual integrity, that is, philosophical types, attempt to unite this rather contradictory explanation into an overall, integrated worldview. There are two variations: 1) I am infinitely powerful, and the task of life is to believe and then see the evidence that this true. 2) I have no powers and need none. I can relax entirely into the flow of events, and there I shall find my peace. The trouble is, when we consciously subscribe to one of these, we unconsciously accept that the other might be true. We need to deny what might be the case. Over time, as it starts to become obvious that our life is still not wonderfull and perfect, we start to doubt the position we have taken. It is perfectly possible that this may result in 180 degree flip to the other side. I call this penduluming, and most seekers have done this at one point or other. The solution is to cease trying to understand reality by either 1 or 2. They are both intellectual in nature, and the intellect is dualistic. When we positively affirm, we unconsciously affirm the opposite. It is absolutely crucial to find an alternative to the intellect. The answer is a felt state of inner comfort which we are always in and which gives us the peace and confidence to use the intellect as it should be used. We no longer need to know the truth, no longer need ot defend the truth, no longer need to be consistent. We can be whimsical, irrational, paradoxical. This is how wisdom should be. The person that loves the truth has no choice but to be the fool.

Under the aspect of time The ego transmutes over time into the self. Ego, which is an individuated consciousness becomes more and more capable of empathy with other egos. The arising of empathy is the decline of the egoic state and the growth of the non/egoic state. Under the aspect of time ego and Self are continuous with each other and lie on a spectrum. Movement along this dimension is gradual enlightenment Under the aspect of eternity There is only universal consciousness and ego is just another representation of it. Enlightenment is impossible, We are already enlightened.

Dreambliss, You talk of a confusion between two very different worldviews: 1) That the world operates according to its ow set of rules and laws. The task of life is to figure these out and adapt ourselves to them. 2) The rules and laws of the world are created by our own beliefs. The aim of life is to see and believe that this is true. Only then will the world be a fun and reawrding place to live. Nearly everyone believes in both these views at different times. Or, we may say that worldview is 2 is the truth, while behave as if it is number 1. Most people are born into worldview 1 and then discover 2 as a revelation. For a few it is the other way round. Wisdom and contentment will only come when you see that both are false. Or, to put it another way, when you see that any given event can easily be explained according to either worldview. These worldviews only come about because of our need to manipulate life according to our desires. We need an overall theory. Drop the theory and live life directly. Rather than think about the way things operate. Feel each moment operating inside yourself. To do this is intrinsically rewarding and is the basis for a happy, contented, interesting, surprising and sometimes miraculaous existence.

I'm really enjoying all this talk about siddhis being demonstrated by us all every day, because that is how I've always seen them. What spotless calls the 'pole up our ass' is our belief that things are dictated by external laws like time and space. The pole is our belief that we don't have siddhis and are constrained. We do not realise that the pole itself is our own miraculous creation as well. When siddhis have appeared in my own life I always enjoy them a lot, They give me confidence and encouragement and I always find them somewhat comic, something playful. They have always appeared unexpectedly and for some reason I've never felt the need to deliberately cultivate them. Had I ever witnessed others' special powers when I was younger and more egotistic I may have been tempted to get some for myself.

Yes, you make an interesting point. The siddhi that we atrribute to others is always appearing in our own life at the same time. The master or guru is our own astounding creation that tends to happen when we need a guru to arise. For myself, I always see the Dalai Lama as an amiable and harmless, but essentially empty showman.

Thank you! At the intellectual level, this can be understood as two very different siddhis. 1) this was a feat of manifestation. He had a desire for a new king and through a powerful ritual caused him to appear in the world. 2) as a feat of foreknowledge, or clairgnosis. He sensed that the present King's reign was ending, and the change of the horse in the carriage was the omen that convinced him that it would happen.

Hi Michael - great to hear from you! I agree entirely about the Dalai Lama actually. I've also noticed that his ability to describe Buddhist philosophy is quite limited, his words sound vague and second-hand, but no doubt there is no book editor that dare correct him! The situation we have is that there are many teachers teaching that the Siddhis are mythical. I suppose if you start talking about them as if they exist there is going to be the expectation that you actually demonstrate them. Which is perhaps where a lot of the 'no I won't show you because spirituality is not a circus' comes from.