Nonsensical Blither-blathering - Part Two
Even more nonsense.
What ensues are even more random thoughts from over the years, from a specific platform for chatting. To those who partook in these conversations, I am grateful. I have left the people in question out of course, so as to not get murdered by them. The ideas have contributed partly over the years to my books, and continue to do so.
As always, I recommend a beverage at the very least. Some filet mignon wouldn’t hurt either. And maybe a bag of candy. Noodles, and french fries. Two thirds of a moose. Hell, through in some chocolate as well. And enjoy!
The One Who Comes and Goes
Tathagata: Subhuti, come here for a moment.
Subhuti: Yes, World-renowned One?
Tathagata: I demand that you ask me a bunch of stupid questions.
Subhuti: As you wish. How many worlds are there in a grain of sand?
Tathagata: My dear Subhuti, if one took one grain of sand, there would be more worlds in it, as there are rocks on all the beaches of the world combined.
Subhuti: That surely is great O Respected One! How many worlds are there in total?
Tathagata: My dear Subhuti, if one took the world to be one grain of sand, there would be more worlds in it, as there are worlds within those worlds, which in turn would contain more worlds.
Subhuti: That surely is incredible, O World-renowned One! Will we ever see all of these worlds?
Tathagata: My dear Subhuti, if all the worlds within worlds within worlds, were not in their place, we would not be here now. And wherever we are, there must be equally worlds that are linked to our world. And thus, all worlds are linked together. All worlds are one world. And so we are in every world.
Subhuti: This is marvellous, O Enlightened One! I have one last question. What is the unsurpassed, perfect Enlightenment?
Tathagata: My dear Subhuti, enlightenment there is. But nobody who enters into it. If someone, by their own merits, attained the unsurpassed, perfect Enlightenment, then it would not be unsurpassed. A path there is, but nobody who walks on it. If someone, by their own conditions, walked the path, then the unsurpassed, perfect Enlightenment would not be perfect. When the Tathagata attained the unsurpassed, perfect Enlightenment, I did not attain anything.
Subhuti: Damn.
On Emptiness
“I am now empty. Free from the turmoils of this fleeting existence. A void, which contains naught but a broken mirror. My life, a tragedy without a glimmer. The dust of the stars, from which I was born, is swept away by the flickering hour. And in the bleak halls of my palace, once the centre of great gatherings, the banquets, the tables, the carpets, the decorations, make mockery of the once vibrant presence of laughter. Forget me, for I was never there.” –Memoirs of Ruyi
The above writing is an expression of the ephemerality of life and what happens when somebody is under regret about their past. If you cannot move on when you know your time’s up, you are wasting your last energies on something utterly pointless. They reflect right as they are about to pass on, about the glory of days gone by. And it contains a contradictory sentimentality.
Namely, the contrast between a tragic life, and yet filled with laughter. Maybe the person wasn’t in that state of mind when other people were enjoying their time. Maybe they hated being in that palace. Maybe they were forced to stay there, because somebody was controlling, which could be the reason for the tragedy point of view.
And the first line, “I am now empty,” means that they were still able to let go in large parts, of their responsibilities, or baggage they carried with them. The last line, “forget me, for I was never there,” suggests that their mind was perhaps elsewhere, and not at the gatherings.
On Misconception and Illusion
The fact that we can inquire into the nature of things, doesn’t mean that it has to be rooted in the material or physical universe. It can be about what I sometimes generally call ‘identity’, and that encompasses one’s relationship with whatever there is.
It can be metaphysical, epistemological, ethics based, or what have you. Philosophy’s job is not to give you a satisfactory model on anything. Especially the “truth”. It’s a framework for investigating things that our instruments can’t. And so whatever falls into theory, is up for grabs.
I tend to entertain various points of view, without taking them to the bank. That is, without settling for anything as a fixed view. Yes, I have certain fundamental assumptions now that I’ve acquired over the years based on new data. But that data doesn’t have to have a corresponding phenomena or a material or physical constitution.
As to the latter part, I never thought that spirituality or spirit, negates anything physical. I do think that our actions here matter. In no way does pondering theoretical knowledge steps unto our behaviour if we have our shit together. It’s only when we confuse the levels, on which it takes place. And many people seem to do.
But for my part, anything “spiritual”, is another aspect of consciousness, and therefore has value in its place. Being grounded in reality or in contrast, in spirit, doesn’t mean that you need to eliminate all things that are inconsistent with the facts of nature. They can be synthesized in my opinion.
Furthermore, I think there seems to be a general misconception when people think of the world as an illusion. They think it means that the spiritual world is the “actual real world”, and so our physical universe falls into a lesser eschelon of existence.
There was an ancient notion you see, that if the eternal things are the spiritual, then they must endure the passage of time. And so one has more chances to correct their misdeeds they did in this life. This can be traced to several traditions. Where the human soul is on a pilgrimage, and so has to work his way “up” through life by doing good, and generally avoid the bad things.
Because they knew that there was either a reward or annihilation waiting at the end of it. And this carries over a tremendous psychological baggage. So, to suggest that the world “isn’t real”, seems to them like it’s undermining this prospect. Or the other side is, that since it’s all an illusion, we can pretty much do whatever the fuck we like. But, the fact is that we still need to navigate in a shared domain of being, where our actions, as my friend said, has consequences to other people.
Whether or not it is an illusion, in this respect makes no difference to that. And so rather than thinking that “my life will have meaning in the next life, or in eternity, because I have more time,” the thing is to appreciate and live in this moment of now. Because it’s the only moment we have. No amount of postponement of one’s accolades will change your past. Neither it will necessarily amount to a “better” situation in the future, or in the afterlife.
So, I always assume that the moment which counts the most, is this one. And this is where “overly spiritual” people are in the wrong in my opinion. They deny the world, sexuality, and pleasures of all kinds. Because they think the point of the physical universe, is to transcend and discard the physical, in the end.
So what would be the “true” meaning of the world as an illusion then? Well, if we trace back the roots of certain English words to their original Sanskrit origins, we can take words like meter, measure, matrix, matter, which all come originally from Maya, which means illusion among other things. But the most important translation according to myself, and few other philosophers, is measurement. That creates the illusion of separation.
And separation being illusory, is what’s generally left out of the equation. Instead people usually focus entirely on the “smoke and mirrors” aspect, not really studying what it means. Maya is born out of measurement basically. Because when we select, chart, network (verb), or reduce the world into units such as inches, or grams, or numbers, we are engaging in Maya. It is the world, as experienced as being separate from the totality. Like the unit inch being separate from the rest of the object that is measured.
Of course, there are multiple different interpretations what Maya really means depending on the school of thought you look into, but the act of measuring the world, is exactly why we have our modern technologies for example. And so measurement has proven to be such a success, that in the process we somehow come to confuse what is being measured, or described, with the reality underlying it. “The map is not the territory,” as was said by Alfred Korzybski.
And as long as this disparity is created, the illusion is “succesful”. There is also an emotional aspect which carries into it, and that is created when we get so absorbed into the details of Maya, that we exclude other information, creating ignorance in the long run.
This is how Gestalt psychology as a field figured out how our conscious attention works. It noticed, that by selection, of those features of the environment that we deem noteworthy, we simultaneously shut out other features. Our attention goes to the object in motion, rather than stationary things.
And so our interest gets caught very rapidly, by things that we “point” to. And so in this way, anything that is punctive, standing out from the background, such as the lines of celestial latitudes and longitudes, is where our attention fixates on. My thought is, that the reason why words and lines in general, have a habit of grabbing our attention so easily, is because our mind is structured in a way which scans for clear differences in contrast in the environment. But going now back to what makes the world an illusion.
It is our selective mind, which creates a separation between things it deems important, and thus excluding other things. This is really, a more modern way of describing an ancient concept. But Eastern philosophy is nothing if not damn complex. And so I have yet some inquiring to do.
On Progress
Progress being always good is debatable. For example, one can see certain patterns in history where technological lampposts were considered highly necessary. Yet because of them, we had to face entirely new problems, some of which we still haven’t figured out or fixed. For example the law of information growth.
What we did was simply sped up linear computation power each year, to the point where we now have to think of alternatives and fast, because the information explosion has been so “successful”. True, we have more information from which to learn. But the price is reduced space. And space is the most expensive thing on Earth these days. True, inflation is another culprit.
But by and large, by Parkinson’s law it requires more efficiency over time. And that means, that as soon as we have the available computation power, there is already so much more data to handle. And so more time and resources are again needed. And so it goes. It’s endless.
The only “solution” we have so far is to double down on the efficiency. And I think any fool can see that that will hit a brick wall in the long run. If nothing else, then in the form of resource deficiencies.
So, the saying “progress is good”, needs an an addendum: “only if it recognizes the limitations put forward by the solutions it offers.” But I don’t know, I’m just amusing to myself here. Also, there is no real technical reason why we couldn’t provide to each and everyone on Earth its basic needs.
The only reason we won’t do that, is because of the massive, massive imbalance of wealths. And also, because we keep asking the question: who is going to pay for that?
The Five Schools to Salvation
One of the more puzzling concepts depending on which tradition or text you inquire into, is enlightenment. I have studied this concept for the past seven years and have identified five attitudes which distinguish not only the content of the concept, but the various means of achieving this alleged state.
I’ve chosen to call them The Five Schools. These will be subdivided into five Rs, respectively called Remorse, Resignation, Recognition, Reincarnation, and lastly, Reconfiguration.
Now, before getting into the specific attitudes, I want to give a slightly different definition of enlightenment. And that is, an inner, personal, sensation, which is directly and completely knowing what is reality at its most fundamental level. Whether it be God, or moksha, or satori. The attitude therefore, is the way or the method, by which to come to know this state of affairs.
Now, this of course all my opinion and I hope people don’t take it to the letter. Nevertheless, these attitudes I feel all lead to the same place sooner or later. Just don’t quote me on it.
- First School, Remorse
This school considers the ultimate path to the fundamental nature of reality happen through remorse. That is to say, with suffering and repentance. This has been taken to such a degree as to spring up in the form of certain cults in central America. Where they practically bleed to get “closer” to God. Now, without mentioning any such organization so as to not tread on any toes, I can only point out the term “penance”. May the resourceful individual look up the rest. This school of thought, perhaps unbeknownst often to its members, conciders the method to be penitence, or repentance as a kind of yoga. Therefore, the school tries to suffer as much as possible. There are various reasons for this, one of which is that you feel like you are alive the most, when you hurt. Which is the reason also why ascetics belong in this school.
- Second School, Resignation
This school considers the path to enlightenment or “salvation” through resignation, or stepping out of the turmoils of conventions. More accurately called an attitude than a school, it tries to avoid all sorts of societal “baggages”. Monks, priests, jailbirds and plain crazy guys such as yours truly, belong in this category. Because a monk as an example, is a person who resigns from ordinary busyness of life. And takes on the “higher things”. This school of thought, gets rid of for example of past-thinking, which fuels our guilt. By finally becoming “timeless”, we overcome its binds. That is to say, by living completely in the here and now.
- Third School, Recognition
This school can be considered as the opposite of the second school. Because it takes on the method of affirming, of participation instead resignation. Where you recognize that enlightenment or salvation is not something that resides “outside” the mundane. Instead you can be fully absorbed in life, society and all it has to offer. Therefore, people in this school are almost undetectable in terms of the religious.
- Fourth School, Reincarnation
This school considers the path to salvation by postponing it to some future date. In other words, they will not accept the inner and personal experience unless they feel they’ve paid a price for it. While almost all the previous schools can have overlap into this one, the reason why I am distinguishing it is one of what I would call “the psychiatrist clause”. Because, there’s a clever pun hidden in the saying: “people who go to a psychotherapist ought to get their heads examined.” In other words, you have to be ready for it. Nobody else can do it for you. So, people who feel like they have to sit on their legs for 30 years before getting the point, well, they had to. It doesn’t meant it’s wrong for them to do so. Which effectively gets me to the fifth and last school.
- Fifth School, Reconfiguration
This school, recognizes that all these attitudes, are not mutually exclusive. And in fact, I have observed all of them interchangebly in the lives of my friends and family. What is often overlooked in my opinion is that there can be dimensions, where you are simultaneously already “there” and not there. In other words, several schools have this notion that you are enlightened right now. The only thing that changes is how you see things, not the things themselves. Bankei, a zen master living in the 1600s, said that you are a Buddha now, where you sit. And you don’t have to do a damn thing to gain or acquire this status. But as was said previously, it isn’t necessarily wrong to postpone it. Because as William Blake once said: “the fool who persists in their folly, will become wise.”
L.
P.S. I’d specifically advise people not to take the last section on the five schools seriously. As I mention in one of my books: there are no wrong guides or schools. Only if they are inconsistent with one’s values, then they could be wrong.
