Responsibility

[Belinda]

Who and what are 'you', EXACTLY? How does the relationship between 'you' and "your mind" work, EXACTLY?

I am the mind plus the body.

I have asked you this previously, How can 'you' have "your mind" IF 'you' are 'the mind'?

And, if 'you', the person, is the body, then 'you' are 'less of a person' if, let us say, there is an arm or a leg missing from that body.

And, if you have to use a thing, that you own/have control over, then how EXACTLY does that "mind" of "yours" prevent 'you' from acting according to emotions only.

Are you able to explain the actual process, so that "others" can learn from this?

I simply say no to the emotions when I see it is not appropriate. It is a matter of maturity.

So, WHY are you STILL continually doing so many Wrong and abusive things in Life?

Nobody is perfect because perfection is not real. It does not exist. A morally mature person makes better choices, not perfect choices.

[Age]

I am the mind plus the body.

I have asked you this previously, How can 'you' have "your mind" IF 'you' are 'the mind'?

And, if 'you', the person, is the body, then 'you' are 'less of a person' if, let us say, there is an arm or a leg missing from that body.

I simply say no to the emotions when I see it is not appropriate. It is a matter of maturity.

So, WHY are you STILL continually doing so many Wrong and abusive things in Life?

Nobody is perfect because perfection is not real.

And, I NEVER said n/either.

Also, let us NOT forget that, "perfection is not real", is just your view here, and NOT necessarily True, Right, nor Correct AT ALL.

It does not exist.

Okay, if you say so.

But let us NOT forget that a 'thing' to come to life, in order to just be able to think and consider this, alleged "fact" some would say that there is some sort of perfection, somewhere.

A morally mature person makes better choices, not perfect choices.

But if one CLAIMS that they, "simply say no to the emotions when they see it is not appropriate", then EITHER they are just saying what EVERY human being just naturally does anyway, or, they are implying that they have an ability that NO one "else" has.

Also, human beings on the evolutionary path of always maturing into making better and better choices could be seen as perfection, itself.

'Perfection', itself, might just be 'doing that', and thus the very 'thing', which continually leads to reaching thee unattainable perfection, which you talk about and refer to here.

'Perfection', after all, might just not be that 'thing' what people first IMAGINE or ENVISION 'It' is.

[simplicity]

Also, are you (really) 'trying to' claim that you do understand the non-intellectual and have experienced 'it' to some degree?

Your Honest and Truly OPEN answer will be much appreciated.

Yes.

So, when you state that you "claim to understand the non-intellectual", then how does this not contradict your other claim that you are "somebody who believes that we are incapable of [really] understanding anything at all"?

Understanding in the spiritual sense is different than it is in the intellectual. In the spiritual sense, understanding is realization, that is, experiencing it. So, I can not understand it in the intellectual sense. And as I have stated in the past, human beings are incapable of understanding anything in an absolute sense. What we can understand is extremely superficial and transient [always changing].

The fact that the intellectual is a moving target is what makes communication quite difficult. Even if two people had nearly identical life experiences, simply the fact that they cannot occupy the space in the Universe, they will have different points of view [and influences]...again, in an absolute sense.

I will attempt to explain.

First off, one cannot "understand" the non-intellectual. It has to be realized [experienced].

Okay, so when you say, "Very few people understand the non-intellectual", what you are really saying, and (really) meaning, is that actually NO one can understand the non-intellectual really, anyway?

Is this correct?

Yes. It would be the same as attempting to understand love. It can only be experienced.

There are two ways one can exist in the perceptual world...one is via the intellect, the other is non-intellectually. The former is often referred to as, The Relative [because anything knowable (intellectual) is constantly changing and exists within time],

Is 'time' constantly changing, and, what is 'time', exactly?

Everything intellectual is constantly changing because the component that make something knowable are constantly changing.

Also, what exactly is the 'perceptual world', and how does "this world" differ from "other worlds". Also, what "other worlds" are there, exactly?

The perceptual world is what each individual perceives.

the later, The Absolute [it is unchanging, i.e., each moment is complete outside of time].

Did you inform us previously about what 'time' is, EXACTLY?

It appears to be something that people made up to make sense out of the intellectual world. Just like mathematics.

I speak of both the relative and the absolute. I know this is confusing because there are different rules for each sphere.

"confusing" to who?

To me, the relative, and the absolute, work in perfectly together, in and with the One and ONLY 'Real world'. But, each to their own, as some say.

Everybody has there own reality. Actual Reality is a different matter. The former is the relative, the later, The Absolute.

Not only that, but you really cannot intellectualize the non-intellectual, so it is said that any teaching of the non-intellectual is simply pointing at the truth of the matter.

This appears 'contradictory' AGAIN, and also.

How would one expressing, intellectually, supposedly KNOW what 'the truth', of the matter, ACTUALLY IS, to KNOW and to be able to SAY, "that ANY teaching of the non-intellectual is simply pointing at the truth of the matter"?

One would HAVE TO KNOW 'the truth of the matter' to be ABLE TO KNOW if ANY one or thing is pointing at 'that' or not, correct?

Of do you disagree here?

This is why most everybody becomes completely confused with Zen and other non-intellectual spheres. You are trying to understand what I am saying [but you cannot]. You can only experience it yourself. It would be like going to a matchmaker and insisting that they tell you how you ideal mate would make you feel. Nobody could do this. You have to do the work yourself to realize such an outcome. On the Zen path, the work is meditation.

In Zen, there is only one lesson...meditation. This is where you will find realization.

In OTHER things, there are are OTHER lessons. Where it is claimed, "this is where you will find realization/'the truth of the matter'. BUT, absolutely NONE of them have been agreed upon and accepted, by ALL.

You have arrived at the intersection where the confusion lies. Yes, there are other lessons, but these only point to the one main lesson, meditation. It's not that the intellectual "stuff" in Zen is not useful, it's just not what it is. Buddhism is a wonderful religion, but it's not what it is.

Also, YOUR CLAIM that, "You really cannot intellectualize the non-intellectual, so it is said that any teaching of the non-intellectual is simply pointing at the truth of the matter." Which, to me, sounds very like the preacher informing the student/follower that, "You really cannot understand God, so ANY and ALL clarifying questions are fruitless".

Technically, you are quite correct, but practically no...because we live in the intellectual sphere, as well. As an aside, some of the most dedicated Zen students are Christian mystics.

The saying, " We cannot, or can NEVER, understand some 'thing' ", to me, is one of the biggest cop out 'you', human beings, use for when you make CLAIMS, but REALLY have absolutely NOTHING to back up nor support those CLAIMS.

I understand why you feel this way, but what if you told your significant other that you required "proof" of their love for you [other than experiential things]. Could they prove that to you? Would it be a cop-out as well?

I have been a very serious Zen student for over 30 years so yes I have experienced some realization.

[

Will you SHARE 'this REALIZATION' with us here? Or, is this just MORE of this 'pointing to the truth', and not actually 'the truth' AT ALL, intellectualization, which you talk about above?

Realization is nothing special. It is only seeing things clearly [or more clearly] because you have been able to remove much of the intellectual filter that contaminates our view of Reality.

Nobody can explain it. It can only be experienced. What I have tried to do is share some different perspectives...like suggesting that one of the most important things people can do is come to an understanding of the limits of the human intellect. When you think about it pragmatically, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that Reality is simply inaccessible to our intellect. This is not difficult to reveal.

I am not a Zen teacher and it is so very difficult to intellectualize this stuff. There are some wonderful books written by seriously realized people. A super popular one is by the master who was one of the people who brought Zen to the West in the 1950's, Shunryu Suzuki. who started San Fransisco Zen Center. He was my teacher's teacher. He wrote a pretty amazing book, "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind." and was an immediate classic. His ability to simplify is extraordinary.

Again, realization is simply gaining the skill to quiet the mind.

It is not something that I can tell you about because it is mostly taking on different perspective or approach. Practically speaking, much of it knowing the limits of knowing. When I say that you can not know anything [in absolute terms], this is true.

LOL So, now, you are NOT 'pointing to the truth of the matter', but actually TELLING us what 'the truth of the matter' IS now, correct?

Also, do you SEE ANY CONTRADICTION, AT ALL, when you say, "you can not know ANY thing [in absolute terms]", and, "this IS TRUE"?

If you can NOT, then I will point 'it' out and show you. Whenever ANY one says, "This is true", then they mean 'that' IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. So, what you have essentially said and STATED is, "You can not know anything and this is absolutely true". Which either means 'we', that is; EVERY one besides you can NOT know ANY thing [in absolute terms] but 'you' can, OR, absolutely EVERY one can NOT know ANY thing [in absolute terms], and this IS TRUE [in absolute terms]. Feel FREE to pick one, or SHOW that there is NO contradiction here, by EXPLAINING what you ACTUALLY MEAN.

By the way, the above was ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one 'trying to' CLAIM there are NO truths, NO absolute truths, NO one and only truths, BUT WHILE proposing, unconsciously, that THEIR CLAIM is a one and only absolute truth.

The CONTRADICTIONS speak for themselves.

All things knowable are in constant flux. Therefore, even if we had the intellectual capacity to process an infinite amount information [which, of course, we don't] there are a host of other issues that prevent us from accessing reality in any true way.

LOL You here make a claim, that is; "ALL things knowable are in constant flux", and then JUMP straight INTO, 'a conclusion', which, by the way, states "that even if there was something, which there is not", there are other things that prevent up from accessing reality in any true way.

1. What are those supposed and alleged "other things or issues"?

2. Can you REALLY NOT SEE the other CONTRADICTION, in what you are 'trying to' CLAIM here? Which is; "All things knowable are in constant flux", SO there is NOTHING can be FULLY KNOWN or KNOWN [in absolute terms] BUT is the CLAIM, "All things knowable are in constant flux", another knowable thing, which is also in constant flux, or is 'that' a knowable thing, which will NOT change? If the CLAIM, "All things knowable is just ANOTHER CLAIM, in constant flux, then that CLAIM will change, ALSO, and therefore, not really worth expressing, in the beginning.

3. If you are thinking your two sentences here were an 'argument', then you are, very sadly, MISTAKEN. The one and only premise of yours here contradicts itself, and your conclusion here says nothing at all except that "there are other issues that prevent 'you' (and some "others") from accessing reality in any true way", which by itself, is saying NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY, anyway. Also, did you NOTICE that CLAIMING that "you/us are prevented from accessing reality in any true way", IS a CLAIM about reality IN a true way?

So we must accept our capacity to deal with reality and make the best of it.

You are absolutely FREE to ACCEPT ANY of your capacity and LACK OF capacity absolutely ANY way you like. But TELLING "others" how they MUST ACCEPT 'things' is REALLY a grandiose view of 'you', that is; of your thinking and your ways, correct?

I [and others] believe the best shot we have is to see things are clearly as possible and react [proact] accordingly.

Is there ANY of 'you', adult human beings, who do NOT believe the best shot you have is to see things as clearly as possible and react [pro-act] accordingly?

If there is ANY one who believes that the best shot they have is to see things as dark or as fuzzy or as murky as possible and/or react NOT accordingly?

If yes, then who are 'you' or 'they'?

This is one of the main benefits of meditation. It simply filters out the non-sense and allows a more unobstructed view.

SO, what EXCUSES, or reasons, have you go for your OBVIOUSLY short and narrowed sighted obstructed view of things here?

All of this I have written is probably not even close to what it actually is but these are the limitations we must all live with when we communicate using the intellectual.

This is WHY I continually suggest that 'you', human beings, STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things, through and from those ALREADY previously gained 'thoughts' within those bodies, and just START LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from thee Truly OPEN perspective ONLY. That way you will GAIN thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

The greatest teachers in the non-intellectual sphere are those who can simplify their teaching down to the absolute basics...thus, Absolute Simplicity is Absolute Truth.

YET it is 'you' who CLAIMS that what you say here is AN IMPOSSIBILITY. So, who has been "teaching" 'you'?

I know that a lot of this seems contradictory because we are speaking of the non-intellectual in intellectual terms. It's supposed to be that way until you begin to see that there are two different sphere. Since we can only communicate in the intellectual, the non-intellectual isn't going to make any sense. I get that. This is why so few Zen students stick with it.

I understand what you are saying and you are not incorrect from the perspective of 1+1 = 2. But what happens when you realize that there is no such thing as '2,' that all things [in the Absolute] are unique [so what exactly does '2' mean?

Going to "the other side" means giving up everything you thought to be true and opening yourself up to the idea that all things are truly One.

[simplicity]

In one sense you are correct. My words are pointing to something else. You might consider opening your mind to alternative ways. This has been around for at least 2500 years. Think there might be something to it?

Calling it non intellectual is ridiculous.
Non intellectual is getting your hands in the earth to plant seeds; jumping in the sea; chopping wood; milking the goats. That is authentic contact with reality.

It can be but it has little to do with what you are doing an everything to do with quieting that little voice inside of your head that takes perceptual reality and makes it into your personal reality.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Also, human beings on the evolutionary path of always maturing into making better and better choices could be seen as perfection, itself.

Human beings are impossible to compare with perfection as humans evolve so very very rapidly. To date humans have evolved to become masters of much of the physical world. The end is in sight for humans whose cultural evolution has led to a dead end comparable with that which did for the dinosaurs.

Certain wild species such as eagles and other hawks are so perfectly evolved to fit their environments that at this time they have reached a pitch of perfection compared with their environments. However if their environments alter, say by the introduction of lethal gamekeepers, these highly evolved birds of prey will no longer be perfect for their environments.

[bahman]

Who and what are 'you', EXACTLY? How does the relationship between 'you' and "your mind" work, EXACTLY?

I am the mind plus the body.

I have asked you this previously, How can 'you' have "your mind" IF 'you' are 'the mind'?

And, if 'you', the person, is the body, then 'you' are 'less of a person' if, let us say, there is an arm or a leg missing from that body.

And, if you have to use a thing, that you own/have control over, then how EXACTLY does that "mind" of "yours" prevent 'you' from acting according to emotions only.

Are you able to explain the actual process, so that "others" can learn from this?

I simply say no to the emotions when I see it is not appropriate. It is a matter of maturity.

So, WHY are you STILL continually doing so many Wrong and abusive things in Life?

What are you talking about?

[Age]

I know that a lot of this seems contradictory because we are speaking of the non-intellectual in intellectual terms.

Some would suggest here that YOUR term "the non-intellectual" is NOT an intellectual term, in and of itself. BUT, if that is the term that want to use, then so be it. You are, after all, just 'trying to' POINT to 'that', which you have completely NO understanding NOR knowledge of how to describe and explain.

This is perfectly understandable, as 'you', human beings, when this was being written, were so far OFF TRACK that you ACTUALLY BELIEVED that KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' was an IMPOSSIBILITY.

It's supposed to be that way until you begin to see that there are two different sphere.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that you do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL truth IS, or what you call "the non-intellectual". But this is only solely because of the way you LOOk AT and SEE 'things', or in other words, because of how you INTELLECTUALIZE things.

Since we can only communicate in the intellectual, the non-intellectual isn't going to make any sense.

BUT, LOL "the non-intellectual" makes PERFECT SENSE, that is; when you are able to SEE 'It'. What does NOT make sense is your human being's individual BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

I get that.

So, WHY can 'you', "simplicity" NOT make sense of 'that', which is, in fact, Truly SIMPLE and EASY to UNDERSTAND and make sense of?

This is why so few Zen students stick with it.

OR, maybe "zen" teachings just have FLAWS and FAULTS within it? Or is this NOT possible, to you?

I understand what you are saying and you are not incorrect from the perspective of 1+1 = 2. But what happens when you realize that there is no such thing as '2,' that all things [in the Absolute] are unique [so what exactly does '2' mean?

But there is a thing '2'. You AND I just SGIWED and PROVED that. '2'is a thing made up by 'you', human beings, and is defined by however 'you' define 'it'.

Also there is only One 'Thing', which is ONLY conceptualized, 'you', the human being, into 'many things'. This was necessary for 'you', human beings, to come to continually better understand and make more sense of this One and ONLY Life, which you have come to exist in.

Going to "the other side" means giving up everything you thought to be true and opening yourself up to the idea that all things are truly One.

So, what is STOPPING 'you' from giving up everything you thought or BELIEVE is true?

When you uncover this answer, then you will become MORE OPEN, and only then you will be able to START SEEING and thus KNOWING MORE about what thee ACTUAL truth IS, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Age wrote:

Also, human beings on the evolutionary path of always maturing into making better and better choices could be seen as perfection, itself.

Human beings are impossible to compare with perfection as humans evolve so very very rapidly.

You just got through TELLING us that 'perfection' is NOT real and now you are TELLING us that it is impossible to compare some 'thing' with 'perfection'.

So, which one is it?

Is there NO perfection AT ALL, or, human beings cannot be compared to perfection, because of some 'thing's human beings supposedly do?

Also, you appear to have MISSED thee actual point that I was making, which was; the natural evolving path, of which 'you', human beings, have absolutely NO choice NOR say in, could be seen as perfection, itself.

To date humans have evolved to become masters of much of the physical world.

When you say, "the physical world", here, what are you meaning or referring to, EXACTLY?

From what I have observed, 'you', human beings, do NOT appear to have much mastery NOR control over the physical storms, which wipe out your human made structures, except that it can be argued that 'you' are causing/controlling the severity of these storms by your very own Wrong and greedy ways.

Also, I would NOT call the causing of the extinction of MANY physical animals 'masters of much of the physical world'. Causing the decline of the environment, which ALL physical animals NEED in order to keep living, through pollution, I would also NOT call being 'masters of a physical world'. And, this is just the 'physical world' on earth, let alone the 'physical world' of the Universe, Itself.

But, maybe you were thinking of some 'thing' completely different? Which we await your reply to.

The end is in sight for humans whose cultural evolution has led to a dead end comparable with that which did for the dinosaurs.

Certain wild species such as eagles and other hawks are so perfectly evolved to fit their environments that at this time they have reached a pitch of perfection compared with their environments. However if their environments alter, say by the introduction of lethal gamekeepers, these highly evolved birds of prey will no longer be perfect for their environments.

Is 'perfection' real, or NOT real, to you?

If it is the latter, then WHY talk about 'it' here, as though 'it' is?

[Age]

I am the mind plus the body.

I have asked you this previously, How can 'you' have "your mind" IF 'you' are 'the mind'?

And, if 'you', the person, is the body, then 'you' are 'less of a person' if, let us say, there is an arm or a leg missing from that body.

I simply say no to the emotions when I see it is not appropriate. It is a matter of maturity.

So, WHY are you STILL continually doing so many Wrong and abusive things in Life?

What are you talking about?

Do you really want me to answer your clarifying questions, yet you refuse to answer mine?

If yes, then I am talking about the Wrong and the abuse you do, in Life.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Also, human beings on the evolutionary path of always maturing into making better and better choices could be seen as perfection, itself.

Human beings are impossible to compare with perfection as humans evolve so very very rapidly.

You just got through TELLING us that 'perfection' is NOT real and now you are TELLING us that it is impossible to compare some 'thing' with 'perfection'.

So, which one is it?

Is there NO perfection AT ALL, or, human beings cannot be compared to perfection, because of some 'thing's human beings supposedly do?

Also, you appear to have MISSED thee actual point that I was making, which was; the natural evolving path, of which 'you', human beings, have absolutely NO choice NOR say in, could be seen as perfection, itself.

To date humans have evolved to become masters of much of the physical world.

When you say, "the physical world", here, what are you meaning or referring to, EXACTLY?

From what I have observed, 'you', human beings, do NOT appear to have much mastery NOR control over the physical storms, which wipe out your human made structures, except that it can be argued that 'you' are causing/controlling the severity of these storms by your very own Wrong and greedy ways.

Also, I would NOT call the causing of the extinction of MANY physical animals 'masters of much of the physical world'. Causing the decline of the environment, which ALL physical animals NEED in order to keep living, through pollution, I would also NOT call being 'masters of a physical world'. And, this is just the 'physical world' on earth, let alone the 'physical world' of the Universe, Itself.

But, maybe you were thinking of some 'thing' completely different? Which we await your reply to.

The end is in sight for humans whose cultural evolution has led to a dead end comparable with that which did for the dinosaurs.

Certain wild species such as eagles and other hawks are so perfectly evolved to fit their environments that at this time they have reached a pitch of perfection compared with their environments. However if their environments alter, say by the introduction of lethal gamekeepers, these highly evolved birds of prey will no longer be perfect for their environments.

Is 'perfection' real, or NOT real, to you?

If it is the latter, then WHY talk about 'it' here, as though 'it' is?

Perfection of A invariably relates to B. In other words perfection does not exist in a moral or aesthetic vacuum.

When I discussed perfection here I discussed it as relationships between a subject and its environment. Because environments are unstable perfection is transient.

[simplicity]

So, what is STOPPING 'you' from giving up everything you thought or BELIEVE is true?

When you uncover this answer, then you will become MORE OPEN, and only then you will be able to START SEEING and thus KNOWING MORE about what thee ACTUAL truth IS, EXACTLY?

In the intellectual realm, I don't believe anything is true [we have no access] which is why I say that we are incapable of understanding anything. The intellectual [a story-line made-up by people through our history] has in it characteristics that render "knowing" impossible. After all, the simplest of things is made up from an infinite number of things preceding. How could anybody understand that? What we do understand is extremely superficial and transient. Much like how your pet hamster might "understand" some things.

As an aside, we learn most about something in the time when we are first exposed to it [before our processing mind takes "what it is" perceptually and morphs it into "what we think it is."

Spiritual truth in the way I am using the term is simply seeing things as close to what they truly are. This is realization, nothing more. It's good to keep in mind that the historical Buddha proclaimed upon his supreme enlightenment that he achieved nothing at all, that is, he was able to completely still his processing mind, nothing more.

So, there are many truths, in the relative [intellectual] sphere, each individual has their personal truth [their idea of that reality might be], and there is spiritual [perceptual] truth of stilling the processing mind, and then Absolute Truth [all things are One].

Don't feel bad that you are having difficulty "understanding" this. As I mentioned, very few Zen students come anywhere close to getting it [which is why all the intellectual stuff exists]. Once you "get it," there is no need for any of it, thus the famous sayings, "Burn the Buddha," and, "Don't mistake the finger for the moon."

[Age]

So, what is STOPPING 'you' from giving up everything you thought or BELIEVE is true?

When you uncover this answer, then you will become MORE OPEN, and only then you will be able to START SEEING and thus KNOWING MORE about what thee ACTUAL truth IS, EXACTLY?

In the intellectual realm, I don't believe anything is true [we have no access] which is why I say that we are incapable of understanding anything.

But do you REALLY still NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in stating, "We [you] are incapable of understanding anything", BUT also state, you "do not believe anything is true [we [you] have no access]?

EITHER "you are incapable of understanding", and this is true, or, this is not true, and "you are actually capable of understanding this'. So, which one is it?

The intellectual [a story-line made-up by people through our history] has in it characteristics that render "knowing" impossible.

SO, you do NOT know this, correct?

After all, the simplest of things is made up from an infinite number of things preceding. How could anybody understand that?

You used the 'that' word here. Now, what does the 'that' word refer to, EXACTLY?

What we do understand is extremely superficial and transient.

How do you KNOW this?

Much like how your pet hamster might "understand" some things.

Some things are KNOWN and understood. Other things are ASSUMED.

As an aside, we learn most about something in the time when we are first exposed to it [before our processing mind takes "what it is" perceptually and morphs it into "what we think it is."

EXPLAIN what the 'mind' is here.

Spiritual truth in the way I am using the term is simply seeing things as close to what they truly are.

Truth, in the way I use the word, is simply 'that', which can be CLEARLY SEEN and which is IRREFUTABLE. Which, by the way, can be KNOWN and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

This is realization, nothing more.

What you said is only 'realization' to those who do NOT YET KNOW how to SEE, CLEARLY, thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

It's good to keep in mind that the historical Buddha proclaimed upon his supreme enlightenment that he achieved nothing at all, that is, he was able to completely still his processing mind, nothing more.

And, some of us have progressed, and evolved, way past that old way of thinking, looking, and seeing.

So, there are many truths, in the relative [intellectual] sphere, each individual has their personal truth [their idea of that reality might be], and there is spiritual [perceptual] truth of stilling the processing mind, and then Absolute Truth [all things are One].

Which is nearly EXACTLY what I have been saying and POINTING OUT, to you. But you seem NOT to be able to have SEEN this YET.

Don't feel bad that you are having difficulty "understanding" this.

LOL FOOL.

Remember, it is 'you' who is the ONE who says that you can NOT understand ANY thing (really).

As I mentioned, very few Zen students come anywhere close to getting it [which is why all the intellectual stuff exists]. Once you "get it," there is no need for any of it, thus the famous sayings, "Burn the Buddha," and, "Don't mistake the finger for the moon."

YET, NOT one of 'you' so far has been able to EXPLAIN what 'It' IS, which you have ALL been pointing AT

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

But do you REALLY still NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in stating, "We [you] are incapable of understanding anything", BUT also state, you "do not believe anything is true [we [you] have no access]?

EITHER "you are incapable of understanding", and this is true, or, this is not true, and "you are actually capable of understanding this'. So, which one is it?

Self reference is nothing but a nuisance that is parasitical on usage of pronouns! Passive voice : There is nothing that can be completely understood. There is nothing that can completely be believed.

These passive voice claims are complementary not antagonistic.

[simplicity]

But do you REALLY still NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in stating, "We [you] are incapable of understanding anything", BUT also state, you "do not believe anything is true [we [you] have no access]?

EITHER "you are incapable of understanding", and this is true, or, this is not true, and "you are actually capable of understanding this'. So, which one is it?

Of course there is a contradiction in what I am saying. The same contradiction exists in everything in the intellectual sphere [the duality of all things].

Do you believe that people have an intuitive sense of things, that sometimes you just know what the deal is for some unknown reason? I believe that most people would agree that there is something we experience that we can not readily explain in this regard. The non-intellectual is sort of like that but much more so. Not only don't I know what it is but I can not explain what it is either. Like intuition, it is purely experiential. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's just that it exist are beyond our ability to "understand" [actually, we can't really understand anything].

So, yes, I do understand the contradiction of saying that we cannot understand anything [in absolute terms] but we can understand a wee bit in relative terms. If you understand the relative and absolute [and live it], then it is much easier to go back and forth between the two. This is extremely confusing to almost everybody.

There is no need to call me names, as I am not a danger to myself or society .

Think about it...

[Age]

But do you REALLY still NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in stating, "We [you] are incapable of understanding anything", BUT also state, you "do not believe anything is true [we [you] have no access]?

EITHER "you are incapable of understanding", and this is true, or, this is not true, and "you are actually capable of understanding this'. So, which one is it?

Of course there is a contradiction in what I am saying.

Contrary to your BELIEVE here, it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to think and say things that are NOT contradictory AT ALL.

The same contradiction exists in everything in the intellectual sphere [the duality of all things].

From my perspective there is NO contradiction anywhere, except in your human being thinking.

Also, by BLAMING some thing ELSE for your OWN INABILITY and FAILINGS to communicate with "others" with our contradicting "yourself" seem to NOT 'taking responsibility' AT ALL.

Do you believe that people have an intuitive sense of things, that sometimes you just know what the deal is for some unknown reason?

I do NOT believe (nor disbelieve) ANY thing.

I believe that most people would agree that there is something we experience that we can not readily explain in this regard.

But what that Thing IS, which is being experienced, can be explained, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY, EXACTLY.

The non-intellectual is sort of like that but much more so.

What are you referring to, exactly, when you claim the non-intellectual is "sort of like that"? What is the 'that', exactly, here? And, how could there be "much more so" of 'that', which you do NOT even know what 'it' is?

Not only don't I know what it is but I can not explain what it is either.

Why not?

What 'it' IS is very easy and very simple to KNOW, and to EXPLAIN. but only to those who are Truly CURIOS and Truly do want to KNOW.

Like intuition, it is purely experiential. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's just that it exist are beyond our ability to "understand" [actually, we can't really understand anything].

LOL AGAIN.

So, yes, I do understand the contradiction of saying that we cannot understand anything [in absolute terms] but we can understand a wee bit in relative terms.

You are speaking for "yourself" here.

If you understand the relative and absolute [and live it], then it is much easier to go back and forth between the two.

What is the 'relative', and, 'absolute', to you?

And, could you have a misunderstanding and therefore be wrong here?

This is extremely confusing to almost everybody.

Is this confusing to you?

There is no need to call me names, as I am not a danger to myself or society .

Who, and/or what is the 'me' here, which is, supposedly, needed to be called names if they are a danger to "them self" or to society?

And, are are new born human beings a danger to "themselves" or to society, because they are all called/given names?

Think about it...

What does the 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY.

Also, are you thinking about this now?

If yes, then what is arising?