by

Mattyo

From this point on, I will never allow anyone to tell me what I should think. I have reached the threshold of ignorance that I can bear, and now my spirit has been consumed by a fire that will never become quenched. I am sick of so-called authorities touting off on what is right and what is wrong. I, alone, will decide what is right and true. I am the only authority. The fire has been lit because of recent experiences being a student. I refuse to regurgitate nonsense information and instead say what I think and why. No longer will I be holding back as I have done before. Almost no real thought takes place in the universities anymore. They have become businesses and nothing more, and I honestly believe that my mind is being harmed rather than educated.

No, from here on out, I will walk and think alone and alone ascend to the highest realms of knowledge. I will question every conviction and thought that all others and I have, and I will destroy those, which are based on falsity and lies. Now I have the courage to do what I must do what I can no longer choose not to do. I will climb the mountain of Truth and shed off all my delusions and false thinking through the suffering the climbing brings. It is the suffering that will purify. It is the suffering I will now face head on rather than run from. I will consume all that tries to stop me with a ball of fire born out of my flaming spirit. The people will all call me crazy. They called Nietzsche crazy. They called everyone crazy who ever said anything truly profound. But, they will not really believe deep inside that I am crazy. No, it will be their fear that calls me crazy. That fear that feeds all of their lies that provides them comfort.

I have heard enough of people s crying and whining about morality. I am sick of giving a shit whether I hurt someone s feelings or not. If the truth hurts their feelings, let them be hurt. I am sick of striving for society s ideals. I am tired of caring about money, work, and what they call education. I am ready to break through the Barrier. I am ready to drop bombs even if it means that I, myself, must perish. The more I follow my innate courage, the more I feel strength pure, unadulterated strength, and I know how I must use it. I want the highest knowledge I want to walk through the fires of hell in order to attain perfection. Nothing can stop me now. A chain of events has already become sparked and it is now just a matter of time before I conquer myself and merge with God.

I now see what it is that I have feared all along. At first, I thought it was losing the good will of others, which it is to some extent. But what I really fear is the fury that is bottled up deep in my spirit. That fury which I repress lest it break out of me and destroy all of my cherished delusions. That fury that seeps out sometimes and manifests as uncontrolled lust and desire. Soon I will have the courage and the strength to completely unleash this fury and let it instantly devour my being and my delusions. And what will be left what will be left? What will be left is the perfection of my God-like Nature a pure unadulterated stream of consciousness with the power to cut through Reality like a razor sharp sword. The path has been cleared for me or has it? It matters not. I am now prepared for the greatest of challenges, and I even look forward to their coming. Never again will there be anything that I hold back. Fear angst anxiety pain thank you all for paying your frequent visits on me, as I would have never ascended without you. Aut vincere aut mori!

It is other people that help to hold me back. It is the sickness and weakness that they are full of. Their putrid, contagious sickness infects me while in their presence. They subtlety and unconsciously wish and will that all other people are like them so that they can feel better about themselves. When they begin to notice that I am breaking out of my delusions, they try and force me back down with guilt and disapproval. It is really the most repugnant thing. It is their jealousy that motivates them. They cannot stand to see another shedding off the delusions that lead to pain and suffering. With just one glance, I burn through their soul. Through my cold, dark eyes I singe away their fa ade and reflect what I see back to them. They always look away. They always fall apart in my presence and here begins hatred. It is weakness that leads to perpetual suffering. It is weakness that must be purged from my spirit. It is weakness that will find no home in my being. Divide and conquer conquer and be whole.

I no longer care about the consequences of my being totally honest at all times with all people. I am forced to listen to people s disgustingly weak thoughts and ideas all day long, but when I start talking about what I believe in Truth, strength, masculinity, overcoming they respond to me like they are appalled and could not even believe that I saying such things. Enough pandering to the weak and ignorant! If they want to force their sickness on me, I will force my anti-venom right back on them!

27th September, 2004:

Matt Gregory

I don't have any ambition to tell people what they should do, nor do I think I am in any position to do so. I don't really think that enlightenment is for everyone. I do think it would be nice if people who are not interested in it admitted it to themselves, but I know that's never going to happen. Everyone feels they are already enlightened.

***

Genius is a relationship to Reality, not a personal quality.

***

Reason and devotion are two parts of the same path. Using reason without devotion to Truth leads to science. Using devotion without reason leads to religion. One needs to reason about Truth and be devoted to Truth.

***

The desire to be grounded in the world is a product of madness, and should be recognized as antithetical to being grounded in Truth, as is the idea of balance. The pursuit of Truth cannot be balanced with anything without completely undermining it. It is an all-or-nothing affair.

***

Matt Gregory: I think anyone who has a mate and claims to be a Bodhisattva is a fraud. A Bodhisattva, as it is traditionally defined in Buddhism, is a very advanced being who puts Truth before himself and pursues it at all costs. In fact, he is the most advanced being (the only exception is in the case of a Buddha, who is a flawless Bodhisattva). It's not other people that the Bodhisattva loves, but Truth. He doesn't share Truth with others for the sake of the others, but for the sake of wisdom. He knows others are not real so he does not value them, except insofar as they are capable of being vehicles for preserving wisdom. The thought of keeping a mate is in total opposition to this ideal.

Question: How have you come to this view, Matt? Would you say that this view you've expressed is chiefly the result of what you've seen from the writings and teachings of others?

Matt Gregory: The idea originally came to me through writings and teachings, yes, but it follows logically from the fact that you and everything else is in fact Ultimate Reality, and if Ultimate Reality is your highest value, then all things would be valued as manifestations of Ultimate Reality, not as things in themselves, which is what a person is: a thing, a dualistic construction. However, you need to act in the world. You have a body, therefore you are always taking action even if it is doing nothing. So even though you know things are illusory, you need to think about them and value some things over other things. Not emotionally, but logically so you can best direct your actions for the benefit of wisdom. Therefore, knowing that you and other people have the capacity for wisdom, this capacity is what you would concern yourself with when you act in the world as a Bodhisattva.

But having a mate or a sexual partner or whatever is an expression of valuing the person not as a vehicle of wisdom, but as an ordinary physical object. It's insulting to treat them as a thing no better than an animal, it's a disservice to them to influence them into becoming attached to you, and it sets a bad example for everyone else, even if you yourself have no attachment to the situation, which I would have serious doubts about, since there is no logical reason to have a mate with six billion ignorant people on the planet and growing. That's a lot of people in need of teaching!

This planet hardly needs more people. We have to learn how to take care of it first, to ensure the survival of the species, and thus the survival of wisdom. Right now I think it's a toss-up as to whether or not the human race will still exist in a thousand years. The world's population doubles about every 40 years. But most people would rather not be so inconvenienced as to thinking about the ramifications of that.

I see no reason to take such foolish risks with something so important. But the fact is, people don't care about life nor the meaning of life nor its purpose. They only care about pleasing themselves emotionally by having babies. I don't see how any wise person could promote that or anything related to it or resembling it. Surely you agree that we should be working for quality of life over quantity?

Question: David and Kevin seem to promote the "celibate hermit" path to enlightenment. While I think that this is a possible approach, I believe that it is unsuitable for the majority of people. Hermit life requires a very unusual amount of resolution, discipline, and independence. You stand on one leg, so to speak, and you topple down easily without the aforementioned qualities. The hermit path is great for periods of intense study, meditation, or in situations where a similar endeavor becomes one's focus in life. But otherwise the inherent dangers outweigh its advantages.

Matt: The dangers are precisely what makes it so valuable! A person isn't going to approach God (or Nonduality, if you prefer) if they experience comfort all the time. There has to be a profound dissatisfaction with one's state of affairs to generate the sufficient motivational force to overcome oneself. But you don't want to be completely overwhelmed with suffering, either, or you'll spend your time thinking about relieving it, so I think it's a question of balancing one's pushing of oneself and one's ability to deal with suffering without becoming distracted by it. Another person in the equation just makes this needlessly difficult.

That a person would topple down in attempting this strikes me as a fearful thing to say. I mean, so what? Does spirituality involve avoiding all challenges or something? I say not. Spirituality is above all a conquest. Fear of failure is probably the number one reason why there are so few great men and women. It's all the rage to be concerned for personal safety these days. Everyone's crying about how unsafe everything is. I don't think it's possible to buy something at the grocery store without a warning pointing out some grave danger. It really is pathetic. Are we really so babyish?
 

***
 

Would you have married a woman that has no respect for you and wants to suck you dry like a leech and leave you? I mean, it's a two-way street. We don't love people unless they give us some benefit. In fact, it's precisely the benefit that we do love, not the person. We love ourselves and that's about it. Love can't extend outside oneself, you have to basically show someone that you love them, otherwise they won't believe it. If you could truly love another person, it seems to me that they would be able to feel it. If you were to think about how much you love your wife continuously all the time, yet you totally ignored her otherwise, I bet after awhile she would think you stopped loving her. So who is the loved and who is the lover?
 

***

I don't know about monastic communities, but I don't think celibacy is all that difficult to maintain once you get over the initial hump and are able to take it seriously. That's really the only hard part about it, taking it seriously. It's actually a lot more peaceful than masturbating or having sex because it quiets the whole drive. The most difficult part about it is dealing with women in a nonsexual way, which is not a natural thing for a man to do. He tends to want to give in to her ego, which is the beginning of the sexual act and will slowly drag him down into it. One has to be very vigilant about one's mind. It also helps to watch your diet.
 

***

There are two kinds of knowledge, scientific knowledge (knowledge about the world, like whether something is hot or cold), and spiritual knowledge, which is knowledge of God (universal knowledge). In other words, there is knowledge about finite things, and knowledge about the Infinite. Now, we need to know about the things around us to survive, so it's good to know about those things, but I'm going to talk about spiritual knowledge from here on out.

We can have some piece of spiritual knowledge, like 'all things are caused', and accept it on the surface, but we may not have a deep understanding of it, and we may not even really believe it, may not even want to believe it, but we might only think we do. For example, if everything is caused, then it follows that people have no free will at all, and that a person is just an empty collection of causes with nothing beyond them. They are no different to a machine or a leaf in the wind in that respect. Everything a person does has causes because there is nothing whatsoever that exists that is not caused.

We generally don't like to believe things like that, but this is the transforming type of knowledge that draws us to God. It seems obvious, at least to me, that if people are actually not real and just a collection of causes, then it becomes impossible to become angry with them or love them, but it's difficult to see at first, because, as I said, we don't like to believe in these things. So we have to think about these things carefully, meditate on them, and assimilate them into ourselves and into the rest of our knowledge. The more we think about things like this, the deeper our understanding becomes and the more we will be able to believe in it.

So understanding and belief kind of go hand in hand. You should never believe in something unless you are certain that it is true. We inherit many beliefs that are not true, so part of all this, the biggest part perhaps, is rooting out all these false beliefs. The belief that we will die is a good example. There is no way to be certain of this, so there is no reason to believe that it is certain. Some scientist could suddenly discover the secret to immortality or something. This possibility in itself is enough to know that death is uncertain. Only universal knowledge is certain, knowledge based on experience is never certain, since there is no way of knowing what is impossible for Nature to accomplish. There is no reason to think that any event or explanation is impossible.

Now faith is a higher form of belief, which I think of as understanding in action. This is the most difficult part about it, because now not only do we have to fully understand God, but we have act on that understanding. I say "we have to", but we don't really have to do anything, I just mean we have to in order to become closer to God. So faith means acting in accordance with one's knowledge of God, which intensifies one's understanding and belief in Truth, and also drags the people around you up to God with you, which they probably won't appreciate :-) So having faith is probably the most difficult part about it. Faith is living in accordance with reason.

David Quinn

For the sake of other readers of this forum, I'd like to analyize the belief that "everything is open to error" or "our every thought is false". It is a fairly widespread view in our society today and, even though it is easy to expose, one comes across it all the time. It is popular with aimless hedonistic types because it gives them a lazy way to justify their rejection of all idealism and their pleasure in being passive.

It should be noted that when a person asserts - or in most cases, preaches - that every thought is false, he is, in the very moment of preaching it, affirming something which he believes to be true - namely, that every thought is false. He asserts it as a truth in his attempt to tear down the idealistic position of his listener. But then, suddenly, in the very next moment, he completely disowns what he has just done and pretends that it didn't happen at all. For he realizes (subconsciously) that he is stuck with the idea that every thought is false, which immediately traps him in a flat contradiction. And because there is no way of dealing with such a fatal contradiction in a rational manner, the only way he can deal with it is by blocking it out of his mind altogether.

And so that is what he does. One minute he asserts a truth so powerful that (in his mind, at least) it defeats every great philosopher in history, the next moment he disowns it and assumes a pose of nothing ever happening at all. A bit like a robber denying point blank that he had robbed the bank he just came out of, even though he is wearing a balaclava and carrying bags of cash. It's a case of arbitrarily rewriting history to suit one's egotistical purposes, a form of denial of reality.

So not only is the person who asserts every thought is false (or every belief is crap, or everything is prone to error) being lazy, he is also being duplicitious and hypocritical. No one who actively engages in thought and values purity could possibly get stuck in it. But alas, millions do.

 

Kevin Solway

You can only properly recognize a delusion through intellectual knowledge, the discriminating force. That intellectual knowledge in itself moves you closer to Truth, but not by any means all the way there. Then, the more you think about Truth, and the more you fill you mind with thoughts of Truth, and the more you love the Truth, you automatically move even closer to Truth, and the direct consciousness of Truth gradually becomes your normal state of being. It is like a process of osmosis. For example, if you spend a lot of time in the fog, then eventually your clothes become soaked, through no extra effort on your part.

Some people try to force their mind into altered states of consciousness, thinking they a getting direct intuitive experiences of Truth, and that they are taking a shortcut to enlightenment. But they are mistaken. They are short-circuiting, and ending in a cul-de-sac.
 

***
 

[An enlightened] person's wisdom can be applied to any particular problem, and see the underlying Truth in it. For example, the ability to see through all genuine koans, or, in fact, any occurance in life. It would include the ability to correctly understand all genuine spiritual teachings.

The person whose knowledge was merely intellectual would struggle with koans, or difficult philosophical or moral problems. That is, even though they would be able to come up with some kind of reasoned response to koans, or religions teachings, or any occurance in life, their response would not be spontaneous and effortless. They would be struggling, and would make mistakes, and would be inconsistent. Their responses would be mostly from their mind, rather from the depth of their character, and dare I say "heart".

***

If a person were perfect they would not feel the slightest trace of boredom at any time, neither gross (marked) nor subtle (faint traces) boredom.

A person who has mere intellectual knowledge, even of all delusions, doesn't necessarily escape even gross boredom (and other delusions), because the knowledge does not pervade all parts of their mind. Their knowledge is compartmentalized. You could call such a person "enlightened" if you wanted to, as indeed "a light has been turned on", but I wouldn't use the word in that case, as the person hasn't achieved anywhere near enough consistency, and hasn't developed enough love of truth. They are not a shining beacon. They are like a person who has just started walking in the fog, and has not get become drenched to their bones. Or they are like a person who has been walking in the fog for some time, but they have remained relatively dry because they are wearing waterproof clothing, as they have no great desire to be drenched.

I would call a person "enlightened" when their intellectual knowledge of Reality extends to everything, plus that intellectual knowledge has largely pervaded all parts of their mind, dispelling all gross delusions and inconsistencies in thought and behavior, and they have a deep love of Truth which shines from them.

Such a person will still experience very subtle boredom, or disappointment, etc. But these subtle remaining delusions will be fleeting and very insubstantial. They will not be able to influence the person's primary thoughts and behaviours in any way. They will be like a barely detectable mist that does not obstruct their vision in any real way, and quickly evaporates.
 

***
 

When I said that enlightenment consists of "removing delusions" that means doing a lot more than simply being aware of truths, and being aware of one's delusions.

For example, a person might know fully why it is wrong for them to eat too much, and not exercise enough, and be overweight. Yet they continue to eat too much, not exercise, and put on weight.

Or they might know why it is irrational for them to feel bored, yet they sometimes feel bored.

Having the intellectual knowledge of a truth is still a long way from removing the delusion, as many delusions have subtle roots, are deeply ingrained, and are habitual.
 

***

If a person only has subtle delusions left, then there is nothing in that person which can become aroused, or inflamed.

For example, there is nothing in them which is inflammable enough that it will burst into flame when fanned. There is at the most only a barely noticeable, mild warmth.

However, it is true that stress treatment will show-up any imperfections, and can reveal a person to be harbouring stronger delusions than they thought they were.

For example, an unexpected sharp blow directly on the thumb with a powerfully swung hammer can momentarily stir up some deep and irrational feelings. But if a person is solidly enlightened, they will feel little more than the actual physical pain.
 

***

If you don't have an emotional attachment to your own life, or the lives of others, or your own future, or the future lives of others, then it doesn't matter much what kind of bad situations you might find yourself in. The enlightened person sees all situations simply as inevitable situations of cause and effect.

So the enlightened person, though tortured, would continue to think and behave as an enlightened person.

At the most they would have to contend with the subtle, very mild hindrances I spoke of before, and these would not distract them from their primary thought.
 

David Quinn

It is interesting to analyze the role of lying in the mind of the perfectly truthful individual. Contrary to what one might expect, telling a lie needn't be at odds with being perfectly truthful. Sometimes even the perfect sage has occasions to lie.

A person who speaks the truth at all times and in all circumstances is essentially an aimless person who has no values. He just articulates what is on his mind without thought for the consequences. His truthfulness is actually the product of a deeper lie which underpins his entire existence - namely, that he refrains from systematically promoting consciousness of truth in others. In other words, his truthfulness is, at best, confined to his own mind. He does not bother himself with promoting truthfulness in others. His commitment to truth is thus selective and halfhearted.

A classic example which illustrates this principle concerns the man who is running away from an axe murderer and takes refuge inside your house. The axe murderer knocks on your front door and asks if you have seen the man he is chasing, and you have the choice of whether to lie or tell the truth.

The impulsive truthteller who tells the truth in all circumstances, no matter what, will obviously choose to condemn the man hiding in your house to death. But what if the man in hiding is an enlightened sage? By telling the truth and condemning him to death you effectively undermine the cause of wisdom by eliminating a potent teacher. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in the future would be robbed of an important source of wisdom. Thus, the compulsive truthteller would in fact be harming wisdom and truth in the long run by telling the truth in this circumstance.

So in a very real sense, the compulsive truthteller is still quite unconscious in his perceptiveness and still a long way short of being wise.
 

***

If you value anything at all in this world, even as something as lofty as the promotion of wisdom, you automatically create the need to protect this value, even to the point of lying for it. If you didn't, then your commitment to this value would be piece-meal.

The key issue for the wisdom-valuer, then, is not whether he can refrain from lying at all times - which, as I have just articulated, is impossible due to the value he places on wisdom - but whether the lies he creates are wise in nature and lack any trace of ego. Obviously, he would want to minimize the telling of lies as much as possible, if for no other reason that to maintain his credibility as a teacher of Truth. But if he does need to lie, then ideally, it would need to be from the purest of motivations.

The recognition that it is impossible not to lie on occasion is part and parcel of being perfect truthful.

***

Q: Perhaps you could give a clearer example of being forced to lie for the cause of truth.

A: Here is an interesting example. It may well be that the religion of Buddhism is little more than a giant lie concocted by Gautama Siddharta (the original Buddha) for the purpose of preserving his highest wisdom. In other words, he created a religious community in which everyone was required to wear the same robes and the same haircut, and flooded it with realms of simplistic dogma and superficial rules, knowing that it would attract sheep-like individuals in droves. Although sheep-like individuals have no potential for wisdom, they tend to be very good at mundane things like building temples, copying texts, organizing lectures, administrating communities and so on. The Buddha saw, perhaps, that they could be harnessed to create a vehicle in which his deepest truths would be preserved for the sake of those few advanced thinkers in future generations.

The process is a bit like a bird eating a tasty seed and flying away to defecate the seed in another spot. What attracts the bird is the taste and smell of the seed, while the most valuble part of the seed is the genetic material contained within it, which the bird knows nothing about. Similarly, the rituals, rules and dogmas of the Buddhist religion are the "tasty" elements which attact multitudes of witless monks, and it is through their mundane. sheep-like activity that they unwittingly preserve the genuine wisdom which exists deep within Buddhism. In other words, the Buddha created a lie for the sake of truth.

I don't know if this is what really happened, but I cannot think of any other (wise) reason why Buddhism was created in the first place. There is no other way that its existence can be justified from the point of view of wisdom. Unless, of course, the Buddha was really a Rashneesh-type charlatan. (But if that were the case, then the presence of the genuine wisdom which does exist in certain parts of Buddhism would still need to be explained.)

 

David Quinn

One of the things that really puts me off academic philosophy is that it is intrinsically a reactionary process. The academic philosopher is always "reacting" to what other academic philosophers are saying, which gives him little time and space to grow beyond this sort of thing and delve more deeply into life. To go beyond the conventions of the day and uncover Ultimate Truth is almost unheard of in an academic philospher. He would just be laughed at by all the other academics. As a result, the thoughts of an academic lack power and tend to become dated very quickly.

Just as no one pays any attention to the antiquated views of Thomas Aquinas - who was the equivalent of the academic philosopher in his day - so too, no one is going to pay any attention to Russell, Kant, and Wittgenstein in five hundred years time. Their thinking lacks timelessness.

Another thing I dislike is that the views that academics love to react to are nearly always caricature views. I always feel I'm entering a comic strip whenever I talk to an academic or read one of their books. The positions that everyone is loudly reacting to are nearly always exaggerated, flaky positions that no one in his right mind would hold, and yet there is this great pretence going on that this is serious, lofty work.

Another thing that bothers me is that the men they like to hold up as a great philosophers of history - Descartes, Hegel, Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc - are all invariably third-rate. The thinking of these men is nearly always overly-complicated, superficial, conventional, formulaic, overly-pedantic, and unrealistic. Anyone with a nose for Truth would pick this up immediately. It is wrong to call these men "philosophers" - let alone "great philosophers". In reality, they are little more than glorified crossword players shamelessly interacting with one another. It's no wonder academic philosophy has become such a laughing stock all over the world.
 

Matt Gregory

29th November, 2004

Kevin Solway

17 September, 2004

When one is writing to a pseudonym, it makes one seriously doubt that one is talking to a real, definite human being, as opposed to a mere persona. The person with the pseudonym feels like a pretender, or a wisp of air, at best.

Weininger has some interesting words on this subject:

Quote:

---

One s name and a strong devotion to it are even more dependent on personality than is the sense of property. . . . Women are not bound to their names with any strong bond. When they marry they give up their own name and assume that of their husband without any sense of loss. . . .

---

I grant that to create multiple names for oneself is arguably better than being nameless, and thus fully feminine. But multiple names for oneself are tending towards the multiple personality syndrome, that is found almost exclusively in women, and is closely allied with namelessness.

I think using [a pseudonym is fine] if a person calls themself, say, "God", so long as they are consistent with it.

If a person uses one name when they are at home, and another name when they are at work, then I don't see that as consistent. Similarly if a person uses one name when they are on the Internet, and another name at other times.

Dan Rowden

 24 October, 2004

I don't think one can say enough about the importance of the depth of desire one has for Truth in the context of the issue of quality of and commitment to reasoning. This desire, driven by suffering (i.e. some form of dissatisfaction) over the fact of one's ignorance is the real driving force of reason. Reasoning becomes natural for such an individual; the significance and primacy of reason becomes obvious to such a person. One does not, for example, have to study formalised academic "laws" and "fallacies" regarding logic to be able to reason efficiently - one understands such things instinctively.

This desire, where authentic and pure in its motivation also greatly inhibits the tendency to wander off into false and often emotionally satisfying intellectual tangents - let's call them what they really are: beliefs. For a person with this kind of pure and deep motivation nothing less that absolute certainly is necessary - not the mere feeling of certitude but true intellectual certainty.......the kind one attains when a piece of reasoning cannot be doubted without that doubt being incoherent of itself (the doubting of the brute fact of experience being a good case in point).

I agree with what David said about the importance of having a "nose" for truth but I think that "nose" is really a natural consequence of that deep desire/need. When that exists the individual has a natural instinct or drive to take any piece of reasoning, any notion of concept to its natural conclusion - whatever that may be and wherever it may lead. Whereas, when that desire is impure or absent, one falters, one's reason is abortive and rests in comforting and superficially (or in some cases perhaps even deeply) satisfying intellectual places. A good example of this is the modernists who insist that all is uncertain with all the accompanying sundry pieces of intellectual dross. Such people refuse to follow the logical consequences of such ideas, even if they intuitively know them to exist; such one's conveniently forget about the term "corollary".

The average male has more than enough raw intellectual capacity to comprehend Reality; what he lacks is the desire and motivation such that he can withstand the inevitable rigours and difficulties that the path to Truth will throw up at him. And where does one begin in the process of reasoning about that which is or might be ultimately true? Well, how about the question of what one means by the term Truth? It's no good attempting to reason about the nature of things which remain wholly ambiguous in our minds........is it?

 

 Kevin Solway

The following observations on karma have been garnered from a series of posts by Kevin Solway in response to the traditional/populist views of reincarnation put forward by a conventional Buddhist:

David Quinn:  .... except for Buddhas who act through momentum, rather than emotion.

Question: Can you expand on this. Do you just mean the momentum of actions that flow naturally from a strong desire to know truth and experience reality?

David Quinn: More or less. It is the momentum generated by millions of ethical decisions made in the course of becoming a Buddha. It reaches the stage where the motivation to promote wisdom is no longer emotional and ego-driven, but is spontane ous, automatic, and natural. It continues unchecked because there is no longer any ego to hinder this momentum in any way. He enters into a kind of ethical free-fall, if you will.

Bryan McGilly

***

Unconditional Love

What is unconditional love?

Simply stated: love unrestricted by any limitations either on the lover or the beloved.

Can unconditional love have an object?

No, for the very act of loving unconditionally requires that limitations not be placed on either lover or beloved. Unconditional love either embraces the Totality or it simply does not exist.

So what, then, is the unconditionally beloved?

The beloved is found to be oneself, the perfect mirror of consciousness.

Such an experience of self is far too marvelous to be compatible with standard experiences of "self," which is one of constantly being harassed by needs and wants, quarreling with deficiencies and weaknesses, belabored by inadequacies and insecurities.

To realize that the self is all that ever appears before one's mind, and as such is ultimately as illusory as a reflection, requires one to embrace that which transcends worldly pettiness: reason.

This cold edge leaves the mouths of women agape, for all of the lives of my forefathers has been but a testimony to women's needs, wants, and insecurities. The greatest advances in technology and society have been but efforts to lengthen the comforter that she unconsciously rolls over with in the night.

Say she doesn't understand reason and you will feel the direct onslaught of her emotional tidal wave. She will be indignant- to the point of tears even- insisting she is right.

Cut through the niceties of explaining for her- chewing up and regurgitating thoughts for her to swallow, and state the facts bluntly.

To a man, all in the room will look away or for a noose. In reality, such pre-chewed food for thought is more harmful than a thousand, nay, a million abortions: for an aborted foetus never lived, an aborted concept distorts reality.

Why all the bother? Why not simply let it be? I cannot do otherwise, nor do I care to. This is my unconditional love.

What is the subjective experience of unconditional love?

Complete and utter dispassion and indifference, wandering the groves of the Infinite.

Unconsciousness in Society

Just about every human bandies about the fruition of greater consciousnesses. These are the pillars which are conscripted by the ambitious as supports for society.

Weininger once wrote in S&C, "The proposition of identity does not add to our knowledge; it does not increase but rather founds a kingdom. The proposition of identity is either meaningless or means everything. . ."

It is a wonder to me that this proposition is entirely meaningless to so many, when it is fundamental to existence.

How is it the case that the property of identity is meaningless? When it is ignored as it is, being the whirlwind of reality which threatens and brings tidings of the end of attachments. What is the end of attachments? detachment- but how can that be seen as ugly? Because all the time the eyes are turned without, one fails to see the ugliness within, that malignant mass of ego which adheres blindly to what it encounters.

How is it that the property of identity means everything? When the self in all is conceived of, and ignored. To my mind, this is reminiscent of Jesus' "Do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing," as well as Kierkegaard's "Crop Rotation." Neither perception nor non-perception.

These truths underlie every aspect of the development of the human mind from childhood to old age. From learning to learn as a child, to learning to let go as the elderly. But to society, the public, the breathing mass of non-being, that imperfect mirror round which lives are cast and molded- this is positively lethal.

Those who handle these thoughts are likewise recast, terminated from the continuity of the ego and cast in the image of the void.

What shape could be found beautiful to one who sports in these waters? What shape to be found? The beautiful now vacant, as beauty has leaked into everything.

But meanwhile, skipping from ice floe to ice floe, we must run fast to keep our toes from becoming numb, for no other's heart keeps one warm.

13th July, 2004

A fool is filled with riddles, a sage with reason

Shame

With the offense of shame, the offended's sense of value hangs in the balance under the guise of honor, or reputation and may only be redeemed through vengeance. The experience of shame is more base than guilt, being impuned on the shamed from an external source. The redemption of the guilty is the higher of the two, as for the man of genius his eternal self, his very identity and salvation are at stake.

True guilt, here defined as being culpable for ones own loss of innocence, therefore, is a masculine character, having its telos in the guilty alone. And insofar as it is impuned and finds its source in another, it is really the feminine characteristic of shame. For the man of genius may not find his redemption in through another, be it Jesus Christ or Gotama. He must redeem himself through himself alone. To seek redemption through another is more loathesome to him than the sum of heinous acts; he would not sully the holy altar of his self with the benevolence of another.

The man of genius recognizes that the feminine-minded know not even shame, only the misfortune of having been knocked down a peg or two on the pecking order. The man of genius, then, seemlessly fuses shame and guilt into the question of his eternal salvation. He alone is his final judge, bowing before no alien god or law; knowing that to do so would be to lose his self.

It is important to recognize that the nobility associated with honor lost through shame is not of the highest brand; that being able to hold oneself as ones ultimate goal and judge.

5th May, 2004

What is the experience called love but the experience of emptiness; a momentary escape from loneliness into merging with another?

Yet such "relief" is no better than an illusion.

She knows your lusts, not your mind.
You create her mind, not her lust.

Her lust is for your mind, what others call your soul.
After all, her mind is what you make of it, as there is nothing there, like the vacant staring of cows.

A man coupled is a mind halved.
A woman coupled is a woman momentarily fulfilled.
A man coupled is another unfulfilled woman.

So goes the starburst of man from generation to generation,
whose brilliance diffuses into her warm embrace like rays into vast space with nothing whatsoever to illuminate.
 

26th May, 2004