Split from Awakening versus enlightenment

[Jetsun]

Ignore it- that's the point of self inquiry. It shows you that you are already free. Neither Gods, Fate or luck control you. You have free will and intellect.

 

See, most people build a story about who they are, they build castles in the sky which revolves around mental attachment to false concepts. It builds a false ego which then becomes the person-an alter ego which is imbued with all sorts of ideologies. Now, meditation helps seperate out the thoughts, but sometimes they are so deeply entrenched it requires sterner stuff to get the separation necessary to see it. The problem is, the mind can often re attach to the method of trying to unlock the false ego. You think you moved on, but it was just transference to a new alter ego.

 

That is why I am now sceptical of the value of hard core practices. I'm not saying they can't be helpful, but they can hinder.

 

Once the alter ego is seen for what it is, then it serves no more purpose, but here's the thing. How can you know when you got there? So, now, back up a bit and realise that the only tool in the box to do this is the intellect. The wheel has to stop somewhere and something must be trusted. Deny intellect and you are ever denied.

 

I agree somewhat with what you say here that there is a continual process of false ego recreation which is very tricky and that many practices can hinder rather than help. But I don't think you have gone far enough in your enquiry if your conclusion is that all you have and can trust is the intellect. Even on the simple level it isnt the intellect which beats your heart and breathes the air. The intellect is a constantly fluctuating ever changing thing blown this way and that by whatever wind comes your way. What is the only thing which is not changing and reliable?

 

As Ramana Maharshi says the essence of the spiritual enquiry is to "Let what comes come; let what goes go. Find out what remains."

 

What remains certainly isnt the intellect, the intellect isn't there during the gaps between thoughts, isn't there during the deepest stages of sleep, or during the deepest stages of meditation and what it arises within obviously can't be defined by it. So how can the intellect be what you are if you don't dissappear when the intellect isn't there?

 

[doc benway]

Something I meant to address earlier -

 

What are these 'certain specialisations, independent aspects and possibilities' then ? ;-) You are holding two conflicting concepts.

So does physics

 

 

Except you haven't come to one conclusion. As shown by your conflicting conclusions. Either you are alone and have independent identity (as has everything else), or you believe you are alone because there is anything apart from you (letting go of identification). You cannot logically be both alone and not alone.

Is light a wave or particle?

Or is physics not logical?

 

The answer is - both and neither:

 

 

 

 

That poem is wonderful by the way. It points out exactly what I have been saying. That the contradictions are internal disputes, or disputes between existence and the minds experience of existence. If you hold two contradicting concepts then one must go. That is what logic is about and that is what your poem reflects.

If you simply use John's poem to prove your point, you are missing a great opportunity.

He is asking us to embrace contradiction and see what that can teach us.

He is not asking us to resolve the contradiction.

[Karl]

I agree somewhat with what you say here that there is a continual process of false ego recreation which is very tricky and that many practices can hinder rather than help. But I don't think you have gone far enough in your enquiry if your conclusion is that all you have and can trust is the intellect. Even on the simple level it isnt the intellect which beats your heart and breathes the air. The intellect is a constantly fluctuating ever changing thing blown this way and that by whatever wind comes your way. What is the only thing which is not changing and reliable?

 

As Ramana Maharshi says the essence of the spiritual enquiry is to "Let what comes come; let what goes go. Find out what remains."

 

What remains certainly isnt the intellect, the intellect isn't there during the gaps between thoughts, isn't there during the deepest stages of sleep, or during the deepest stages of meditation and what it arises within obviously can't be defined by it. So how can the intellect be what you are if you don't dissappear when the intellect isn't there?

 

The intellect has to be trained. It is not good enough to simply state that the intellect alone is good enough. An untrained intellect is a loose canon and is swayed by all manner of falsities and experiences. However, the intellect is all you have and it is more than sufficient for the task. It is unbelievably powerful once trained, far more than you can conceive. If you don't attend it, or make the mistake of thinking that it is unnecessary, then you give up the most precious gift.

 

The intellect is only brought into play when new experiences are encountered and when it is necessary to make deductive/inductive operations and in order to sift the wheat from the chaff. Once the new insights/concepts are gained, then they can be tucked into memory. The more those concepts are used, then the less conscious access is required and things become second nature.

[Karl]

Something I meant to address earlier -

 

 

So does physics

 

 

 

Is light a wave or particle?

Or is physics not logical?

 

The answer is - both and neither:

 

 

 

 

 

If you simply use John's poem to prove your point, you are missing a great opportunity.

He is asking us to embrace contradiction and see what that can teach us.

He is not asking us to resolve the contradiction.

 

Physics: if the light wave is considered both wave and particle, then, the physicists are wrong and must check their premises because they have missed something.

 

The poem is asking you to discover where the contradictions are and remove them (ask what they are trying to tell you). It is the beginnings of analytical discriminatory thought. I did not realise the depth and quantity of contradictions are I had been holding until I studied logic. It's an ongoing process.

 

The thing I cannot know, is, had I not learned to hear my thoughts and moods, would that have made a difference ? I think possibly that it wouldn't. That I would have sorted myself out if I had found the Trivium first-but then I suspect it would not have remotely attracted me in the way that esoteric practices did.

[Jetsun]

The intellect has to be trained. It is not good enough to simply state that the intellect alone is good enough. An untrained intellect is a loose canon and is swayed by all manner of falsities and experiences. However, the intellect is all you have and it is more than sufficient for the task. It is unbelievably powerful once trained, far more than you can conceive. If you don't attend it, or make the mistake of thinking that it is unnecessary, then you give up the most precious gift. The intellect is only brought into play when new experiences are encountered and when it is necessary to make deductive/inductive operations and in order to sift the wheat from the chaff. Once the new insights/concepts are gained, then they can be tucked into memory. The more those concepts are used, then the less conscious access is required and things become second nature.

 

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. 

[doc benway]

Physics: if the light wave is considered both wave and particle, then, the physicists are wrong and must check their premises because they have missed something.

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.

 

 

The poem is asking you to discover where the contradictions are and remove them (ask what they are trying to tell you). It is the beginnings of analytical discriminatory thought. 

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. 

[Karl]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

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.

[Jetsun]

Intellect is holistic. The reason you haven't fully understood this is precisely because of modern methods of specialisation. 

 

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. 

 

To be honest in comparison to these already existing innate intelligences the intellect is pretty limited and unimpressive. 

Edited September 28, 2015 by Jetsun

[doc benway]

Something is either A or B or neither.

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 inconclusive and theoretical.

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.

 

 

We got turned around and scrapped reasoned philosophy and now science is going up its own tail pipe.

Too general to be an accurate statement, IMO. 

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

 

 

Anyway, in time it will be revealed.

Maybe, maybe not.

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

 

 

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.

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

 

 

John asked what those contradictions revealed. What do you think they reveal ?

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.

 

 

 

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.

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"

 

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.

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

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

[Karl]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

FWIW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_interference_experiment

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

[manitou]

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.

[Karl]

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.

[Karl]

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.

[Karl]

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.

 

 

[doc benway]

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

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.

[Karl]

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.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Karl

[doc benway]

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.

 

[doc benway]

And to quote someone whose tolerance, patience, and lovingkindness I admire... 

 

Karl, this is getting ridiculous.

[Karl]

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

 

 

[Bud Jetsun]

You can judge if you want, but then you have to prove that what I say isn't true. If everything I say is true, then where is the arrogance ? If I am saying something is true, but I believe otherwise, or doubt what I say, then that wouldn't be arrogance, it would be a lie.

 

 

 

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

[leth]

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.

 

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?

[Karl]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

 

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.