The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

My shot at that has always been:
For an object to exist, it must also then therefore not exist.
Meaning, a roll of toilet paper only exists as you see it because it does not exist anywhere else; just precisely there.

Why does something exist precisely there instead of anywhere else?
Water. That’s why.
And that last part…I can’t explain unfortunately. That’s one of those that just has to click if it does or has.

Buddhism isn’t really what grabbed me in there.
He wasn’t a Buddhist.
He actually denied Buddha; walked away on the reason that he had to find his way and that one could not find their way through another’s way. Buddha’s way was good for Buddha, not for Siddhartha; Siddhartha had to find Siddhartha’s way.
He found that he had found his way all along once he was an old man.

Mmmm, yeah, no…I never say to turn off distractions. Ever.
Instead, I implore people to bury more deeply rather than remove.
Rather than take away, add upon.
The more you have around you, the more you can learn yourself by feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else.
And the more you know yourself, the more you can articulate your movement in life accurately rather than marginally.

I plopped this up a while back ago for other reasons, but that was a bit ago before you came 'round.
If you want, you can check some of my ideas and thinking out on this site where I store a portion of my work.
Others are still being compiled.
sites.google.com/site/bomanism/

perhaps what you are saying is that one simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc…

Maybe it has been a while or maybe i am thinking of another book…but I know I at least read one with “Siddhartha” in the title…been a long time though…

it would seem to me that the point in “feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else” can lend to recognition of reducing specific reactions, that would be of the forms of distractions in one of the ways I was using the word…in other words to learn that anger is a distraction as to be more in control of it, or at least rid of it in so far as it is detrimental.

I think i agree entirely with the forward…

The “self” to me is all that a thing is not simply the spirituality…and on “Self is seen as one’s nature” I tend to think all things are natural and thus of nature…(I’m not really judging i haven’t read enough yet…plus I have tendency to read with respect more to what was generally meant like I might continue reading as self meaning “spiritual self” however it fits into my picture…I guess)but then i recognize that agreement with all is not so important…I’ll have to read the rest tomorrow, and probably after work…it is getting late and i need to head to bed…i am glad you felt worth in sharing such with me…

One simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc… one isn’t.

Probably the same book.
It commonly is thought of as Buddhist because Buddha makes an appearance and “Siddhartha Gautama” was the Buddha’s real name (Buddha being the title; like Jesus vs. Christ), but in the novel, the character we follow that is named Siddhartha is not Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha; they are kept separate.

Not simply to reduce.
You don’t learn how to move combatively in a gym simply to remove detrimental actions and reactions from your personal style.
No, you also practice such with the intent to gain leverage in motion of those same actions.

Anger is highly useful, for instance. Learning how you react in anger and how you can use it is very helpful leverage.
Not only in the sense of what anger offers in and of itself when needed, but also what anger offers in telling you about yourself.
When something angers you, it should tell you something about what you value and why.
But also, anger can simply be an effective means of movement.

But more so, the idea is to learn both angles; flex and reflex. Not just one or the other.

Mr. Lee was a smart man.

You’ll find in the reading that the terminology is separating from essence, and not competing with your ideas here.
For instance:

Another way of saying Self Nature, in Bomanist context, is to say The Way In Which You Move Naturally; your Self Nature.
It is referring to nature as an action; not a title.
It is indeed all of you, and even beyond your body.
It is what I see as all the ripples that you make around you as well.

You’re in a body of water: all of the ripples that you provoke; all of the ripples that you disrupt; all of the ripples you do not either of these to; all of your body down the smallest particle; and all of these over your entire life.
All of this in motion together; that is your nature.

Are you saying no that if this is the case one doesn’t exist or something…I’m not sure that i follow what you mean here?

So you get rid of the distraction of getting rid of distractions?
I meant anger in so far as it was negative…of course it can be used for better things…at times…but then one might not call that anger but rather something else as it would seem part of the definition of the word anger is the negative conotation…In otherwords i am suggesting that “anger” is the word for a particular emotion type in so far as it is unbeneficial…at least to me…it would be more typicaly conducive to acceptance on a wider basis to refer to it with a term that did not suggest that emotion in so far as it was bad, but in so far as it could be beneficial, or simply refer to the emotion more primarily…

I would think essence is an aspect of nature. You seem to be using the term nature as it is used in the ideas around “nature vs. nurture” In reality i see nature and nurture as one…One can call all things nature, and thus say nurture is an aspect of the nature, and as such any aspect of a being including what might be called the essence is an aspect of its nature.

I would agree with this but after reading it more like this (excluding the word nature): “The Way In Which You Move [as is different than else/sets you apart from others]”
Although I tend to think that to say one is “set apart” is slightly inaccurate in that really things are merely different, and in no wholistic way apart, just distant enough to be considered different by perception…

i might call this the true person…or the soul…All that a thing is…not merely the skin and bones, but that which it produced, its affects…etc…I am beginning to understand your use of “nature” better…

Although I might add an odd thought that when one watches another so as to recognize their ripples any thought regarding that thing/person is a ripple thereof itself…

Still reading but i had a thought along with what you are saying about:
“Imagine all of your life and yourself, every emotion, every event, every person - everything that is not your awareness.
Now imagine all of these things as floating slates of stone that are constantly moving and flipping.”

And then that one often finds a place to cling and then that one can find a means to maintain balance by getting use to the flow…
What would it be with regards to the metaphor if one were to find a way to stop the “constantly moving and flipping”
I would think that such would be death…but what if one kept living…what else could it be…
yet then in going with the flow things would seem to be un-wavy if one was moving with the waves…

I like the idea of not clinging to slates but are there not slates of not-letting-go-ness…slates of addiction…that if passed over are hard and possibly impossible to leave?

A negative silhouette is the best example.
Everything that something is, if you consider it, is really a summary of everything that it is not.
Think of a whirlpool.
A whirlpool is surrounded by water, which it itself is as well.
The difference is that the whirlpool is not linear current, but twisting current.
It is essentially everything that is not any other form of water movement.
A description of what something is, is a .zip file of everything that it is not.

Not so much remove distractions.
Instead, stop seeing distractions as such and instead focus upon them and find how they are a part of your nature.
The currents in the water that move against you, they seem like distractions from how you may want to move.
But instead of trying to ignore them and get around them; focus upon them, see how they are a part of how you move in that water.
Then you can use them as part of your motion; not as a distraction or obstacle; but as a partner in league with the rest of the movement.
Including the distraction of distractions.

So kind of, but I do not think in such terms.

No, there’s no discussion referring to nurture vs. nature because I hold both at once personally; not one or the other.
And they so do recursively.

Essence is an idea, as I wrote.
It is a means of categorizing.
Nature, on the other hand, always implies motion; life.

The reason that I brought it up as such is because when you step into concepts of essence, spirit, soul, nature, etc… many people tend to suspend time when conceiving of the idea.
Thinking of this thing as a solid state.
The point of Self Nature is that we are not dead objects of thought on a page in a book somewhere.
We are a moving thing which is alive; we are not an essence, but a nature.

It’s not regarding nature/nurture, but moving vs. not moving.

Essence is an aspect of nature; yes; nature on the other hand is more than essence as the word essence does not refer to a living thing, but a moment of a thing; a form, a basic form, or the core concept of a thing.
It does not refer to a moving and living thing as nature does.

The nature of you is…__________

It’s not intended to create a separation.
It is intended to be as you think; holistically.

The reason I wrote, Naturally, and not “as is different than else/sets you apart from others”, is because your nature is going to inherently include other natures you move with, against, and along in life.
Your nature is partially defined by other natures all around you.
Your nature isn’t separate, but unique.

Like a wave in water.
That wave is not separate from all other water around it, but it is unique to being that specific wave.

Exactly.
This is why “soul” was brought up as to a form of concept that is implied by the term Self Nature.
I did not wish to use “soul”, however, because it has several preconceived ideas upon it that make articulation difficult; and Self Nature, once described briefly, is incredibly exact in meaning as it is used in the text.
You could say it another way, “How would Jayson describe the human soul? Jayson would describe it as the human Self Nature.”

Basically, yes.
In this perspective, it would be death.
Even if you think of things after this life, they are moving.
Not moving simply means not existing at all.

And indeed, that is exactly the idea; moving with the waves to reduce the effect of imbalance.
Eventually, your “sea legs” come about and you learn how to balance with waves as if they are perfectly level ground.
Akin to this is the idea presented.

Oh that makes more sense…

So i would think what you mean is alter the perception of the thing. Rather than thinking of things as distractions think of them as…lessons…or things to learn from…

Makes more sense…confusion as a matter of definition difference i would think…

This confuses me though:

“A person does not need to accept openness, seek emptiness, find liberation, or refrain from clinging.
A person only needs to move.”
What reason is there to move then?

i have finished reading it and i like much of it there are some things I would like to discuss but i think it best to start with the above and move slowly so distraction by any one thing doesn’t lead away too much from others…

That section is discussing common spiritual solutions. A common approach to reaching contentment of some kind, or balance as I would rather put it than contentment, is to pursue a form of removal or freedom from things seen to cause obstacle or non-contentment.
It is pointing out that this isn’t needed because all such things are part of your nature.
What you need, as a living thing, is to keep moving; not removing ways to move simply because YOU don’t like the way something moves with you.

I was just thinking that the other day how there is adifference between contentment and happiness. People seek to say, pay $50 dollars for a video game as soon as it comes out that will get boaring after its beaten…it might be better to find contentment than happiness in many ways…besides contentment resolves into happiness…I guess

“A person does not need to accept openness, seek emptiness, find liberation, or refrain from clinging.
A person only needs to move.”

but i would think that with regards to the subject one seeks to “move” in order to achieve a goodness or something beneficial…and it might be fair to say it is a liberation from another thing, the less beneficial or what have you…

“Life does not need to change to fit the person so that the person can find their nature.
The person only needs to change their perspective of how they see the world to find their nature where they already are.”

I think it is important to sometimes do either. I have meant this by saying this before: “Not only to lose weight to fit old cloths, but sometimes buy new clothes to fit better.” It depends, limiting to one path, is limiting, either way. To go directly to the opposite might be a reaction to an extreme into another.

You are correct.
Yet the perspective labels the liberation as emersion.
And this is done to maintain the perspective’s ambition; to be balanced in any life you have, not just a select ideal type of lives (such as ascetic or monastic where life is reduced to extremely simple variables to control and gain contentment).

Which is exactly why it reads that one does not need to…etc…rather than one should try not to…

And I wasn’t saying what you clearly meant was wrong…just a wording thing…I could pick meat off a 5000 year old bone, when it comes to finding possible interpretations of things…

Which I can see as fair considering that people seem to have a tendency to spend more time trying to fix the outer rather than the inner…but still i would think that some might see this and see the value all over and accept that, without seeing that taking “changing the self” too far can be detrimental as well…

Picking at the bone again:

“Notice that the metaphor for one’s self nature is the dancing itself and not a, “thing”.”
I would say not a “physical thing” or something of that sort (be descriptive of the type of thing you meant), as such would still be a concept, or an aspect, whatever it is, so long as it is, it is a “thing”. If it is not a “thing” it is not something that exists…

Another picking:

“It would be whatever doctrine one follow’s self nature; but not one’s own self nature.”

Following a doctrine in so far as one might mean say a religious text I would agree that it would be wrong to simply follow it blindly…however I find many of the teachings good lessons…The Qur’an for example refers to itself as a “Guidance” not a “you-must-follow-exactly-everything-or-go-to-hell-thing” Mostly the problem is with followers of specific things that attempt to push their own way of understanding or methods on others…their own interpretations…

And I noticed that this and a few other things might be read such as to be contradictory to certain belief systems…
for example when you said:
“We should not dismiss teachers of the self nature, but we should surpass them the same as any pupil surpasses any teacher of any tutelage.”

i respect this and agree…though it can be hard to tell when one has surpassed, and i tend to think that being the teacher one is just the learner more expected to talk…i.e. both child and parent are the teachers and learners…different lessons maybe…

but anyways there would be conflict with those who think that Jesus is that which cannot be surpassed kind of thing…but yeah…even then maybe few and far between who would read it as such…

With regards to enlightenment might one reach a state of which they are constantly experiencing enlightenments? Perhaps faster and faster…

and then:

“There is no Degradation which one cannot reconcile, correct, and overcome.”

Suicide :slight_smile:

And many others are chancy…like smoking…might end up doing that till you die…or heroin…
But I think you mean to see past these things as other events leads one to see these as invaluable to the self nature?
i would think that the order one approaches “doing” can be…degrading
in otherwords it may be better to do certain things before or after others…
Everything is not like that but certain things it would seem are…start to put order to everything and there is to much control…

People could, yes.
This is also why such lines exist as, “Don’t struggle to not move from slate to slate, but instead respectfully enjoy their placement in your motion, to what they bring to your life, and then move on.”

Dancing as a concept is a thing; it is thus granted as a noun.
Dancing itself as an action, however, is not a thing and is thus granted as not a noun, but an intransitive verb.
Ergo, “…is the dancing itself and not a, “thing”.”
Because in the metaphor, dancing was not used as a noun, but an intransitive verb; an action.

It was written for exactly the opposite reasoning. Not with the thought of people being blind, nor people pushing onto others, but instead people adhering devoutly to an ideal to rescue their self to a saving from what they were to what they want inside of a doctrine or ideal.
If you follow a form and just the form, then you will be that form; you will not be your nature.

To such a person that would have issue, I would firstly offer that they could easily ignore what they do not like.
But then I would also point out that they could be mistaken since that line follows with:

“In this way, discord is seen as cyclic; that one’s discord’s continue until one no longer requires them, yet that one may revisit any of their discord’s even if previously overcome should they need to learn what they learned from them about their nature before, or should they need to learn something from them anew.”

Which, to the Christian, I would remind without repremand that their own messiah speaks of the same of himself:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

I would tell such a person to go to Jesus when they wish to rest and learn. Leave when your rest is fulfilled, and go back when you become weary.
That is your cycle as a Christian; that is your way.

To each, the timing is different. Some are rapid; some too rapid and they become sick; others slow; others too slow and they become angry, depressed, or desperate by another name.

That actions meanings depend on your culture, firstly.

If we talk of our culture, then I would answer that suicide isn’t the degradation; it is the action after the degradation.
The degradation to the relationship between you and yourself has already eroded and you chose not to reconcile with yourself; either because you did not want to, or because you did not believe that you could be reconciled to yourself.

Again, there is a degradation that is there before these things that needs to be addressed.
In some cases, neurologically.
In others, psychologically.

Not invaluable; but if they are damaging, then why are you doing them?
What does this teach?
Even the heroin addict that never gets off of heroin will learn his nature by reflecting on his addiction and how he sees that in regards to degradation; if he does at all.

Many things can be degrading.
Each person has to use their own emotion to determine what it is that they value, and when it is that they have degraded it.