It does not matter what I do, what I have done, or what I am deciding; what I seek is to agree with what I do. If it wasn’t agreement, it would not be sought.
“Must” implies “fear”. You cannot urge someone that “they ‘must’ not fear”. Remember that you do not do things because you “must”; but because you have agreed with its emergence, and are fond of its every aspect. Never feel the force of obligation.
Freedom within the cage, teaches you where to find the freedom you have so that you will be no longer taunted by the cage. Once the cage no longer taunts you, you will be truly free. The source IS what there is (what you have), it is unfit to yearn for more.
The way I see that it can work: once I lose my concern about a certain thing, I am able to see why I should not be concerned about it. My need keeps me from seeing how much I have it, because it indicates that I should have it more; my need makes me see how much I do not have it, and a great severity. Once I see how it is not necessary, I will see that which keeps me at peace (how much I do have what I need).
Still, because I know there is many ways to “cheat this system”, sometimes I think I should “seek awareness” instead of “being satisfied with what I have”. But if satisfaction (love for the now) does not bring the blessings, it only means I am not ready for it; I must still pass through this stage.
Lastly: The reason I am not writing these things down is because I do not want a “method to enlightenment”. I want it to come naturally; I want to learn its nature, its undeniability and necessity. I want a tautology, an axiom, not a formula.
One of the reasons why I am motivated to stay away from indulgence is because, not only does it leave me feeling empty after the high, but I feel empty during the high. Last night I managed to convince myself that the reason I felt the need to listen to the song was because that is what listening to the song brings. The pleasure? No, that is an illusion. This emptiness, that is how it REALLY makes you feel.
We fight and rebel like we know the truth,
But when we win the battle,
We see we knew no better,
Than those who ruled before.
In trying to organize these ideas into my blog, I look up different types of paradoxes to be able to label certain categories of thoughts. As I look at different paradoxes I realize that I am guilty of a couple of these. So then I begin to write out my most common discords and measure them up against this logical set ups.
First:
The first one is simple and I already mentioned it today:
Premise: I must not fear, fear
Conclusion: I must fear, not “not fearing” fear
It sounds convoluted but that is exactly the way that my mind is deducing it. I spent a little time to analyze what was going on, and why the conclusion ended up being the opposite of the premise that I was dedicating myself to keep. While doing this I also kept in mind that “ideal logic” works only with symbols because of this problem of language and the meanings that each word carries… simply put, language (as it pertains to real life) carries a lot of baggage that does not carry over too easily into the world of logic. So, here I was, trying to be careful about how to sort this out. I deduced that the reason why the conclusion was so, was because the word “must” carried a force that already implied “fear” (essentially fear of the opposite of what I MUST do). So that when I said (premise) “I must not fear, fear”… or even, a better example: when I say (premise) “I must not fear”, I am implicitly saying (re-articulation of the premise) “I do, indeed, fear, fear.” In this way it is understandable where the conclusion (I “must” fear, fear) comes from; so that the premise already has an intrinsic paradox by the time the conclusion is made. This is why I deduced that it is not a good idea to ever feel the “force of obligation”… and so on.
Second:
Another common discord I have I have is that whenever I “realize” that nothing truly matters in the universe, instead of living by that idea, for some reason I deduce that I must suffer. I accounted for this tendency when I compared it with the “Paradox of Entailment”: which says that if the premises “cancel each other out” the argument (no matter the conclusion) will always be valid. This is because when the negating premises combine, they can imply one thing or its opposite or anything in between for that matter. Along the same lines one can appraise the idea that if it is true that pigs fly (of course, given the assumed premise that pigs don’t fly), then WHO KNOWS what other crazy hullaballoo can be true.
When I see the Universe as a great paradox (premise), I can conclude anything from it! And what I tend to conclude is a reason for my suffering.
Premise: Whatever
Conclusion: I must suffer
Now there is certainly nothing wrong with this logic. It is just as logical to deduce that I must suffer, just as much as it is to deduce that I must not; and yet, I have a predisposition to choosing that I must. Seeing my problem written on paper like this, compared to this “paradox of entailment”, I realized what I was doing wrong, and even what I should do. Since the paradoxical premise of the universe ends up being circular, it allows the conclusion to be “self-generating”. This is proof of free-will since “anything can be deduced from it”; the conclusion from the argument is not forced by the premises, but is ultimately generated by the PRESENT, by decision, or even “induction”. But one must still understand that, as far as the purpose of logic, the premises ultimately deduce themselves. This idea synthesizes with my moral idea that, “it is not wrong to do wrong, but you have no desire to do it”, or as I quote from myself, “It is not necessary to find Enlightenment, but you won’t know that until you find it”, or “Our desires are consummated by [God’s] existence whether we know it or not”; and even the idea of Brahman in Hinduism, that in that state of perfection you are able to see the Truth of Unity, all sense of duality is lost. There is no difference between right and wrong, and there never was; but people tend to ask, “If there is no right and wrong, then why should I seek Brahman?” and of course, my common question that tormented me for a lot of 2010, “If nothing I do matters, then why does it matter what I do?”
Like I said, in essence there is nothing wrong with the argument:
Premise: Nothing matters (paradox)
Conclusion: [X] matters (non-paradox)
It is not wrong to conclude this from the premise (because it truly does not matter), but from the non-paradoxical conclusion (it does matter) many things can be wrong… and when the conclusion is evaluated up against the paradox, it ends up being wrong all the way to its founding essence. Free-will allows us to believe that certain things matter, but the belief itself destroys itself by virtue of it claiming to not be affiliated with a paradox. As I have it written in July 3, “
(INTERMISSION::: As Master Paramahamsa Nithyananda said, "logic is just another superstition…" logic itself is an “[x] matters” type conclusion, so that any form of thought that deviates from the Present/Truth/State of facts [and in fact, this ends up being any thought whatsoever] essentially seeks to be decomposed back into the Present/Truth/Paradox/God)
So now, I ask the question: “How do I get a hold of this ‘induction’?”
Something that seems to stand out in my mind is that “backwards learning” thing that I discovered on July 20. I do so by picturing an “enlightened Jimmy” (to figure out its necessity). If I cannot do this, then I guess I should first picture myself picturing an “enlightened Jimmy” (to understand how it is sensical)… ???
No, the way to “fool myself” into being enlightened is by (induction) feeling good and COMPLETE already, by encouraging and having faith in yourself (again, by induction), by calming down about it and inductively become satisfied. Because, remember you are NOT seeking awareness, you are seeing that you already have it.
Alright, so basically:
Feel good (like you actually knew everything) + Backwards learning (that results from accepting the “feel good” to actually be sensical) = Enlightenment.
Feel good (like you actually knew everything) + Backwards learning (that results from accepting the “feel good” to actually be sensical) = Enlightenment.
Now, I have to figure out what type of “good” I want to feel (how to make it address “like I actually knew everything”): Like if THIS what I see, was everything there is to know, and it is true (but I just don’t know how). But I must pretend I know how because it even tells me how… and it does. I just don’t listen, so I must pretend to listening, and I do because that is what the fact of cognizance means. Cognizance means I am in fact listening, just not completely. So I must pretend I DO listen completely; and in fact I DO listen completely because what I cognize is THIS/Completeness/Existence.
The reason why the present is so, is only because of the present (nothing else [not the past]), and it is true. There is no other reason why it is so.
Induction is REAL. Disatisfaction begs for satisfaction by virtue of itself; and if induction has dominion, why would anyone ever be dissatisfied? If induction has dominion, why would one CHOOSE to give up free-will? How could one choose to not choose?
No comments:
Post a Comment