The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

[Abstract]

"why am I me, as i am now, where i am now, when I am now, and not in some other form of existence with the same perception of I?"

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.

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

Buddhism is something I was attracted to for a long time.

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.

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...

Closing the mind to distractions is good too...though paying attention to what distractions are there can be interesting...And one might find that should they fade far enough away from what they consider "distractions" they become jaded...bored...and wish for a return to things that many say are "distractions"...but i see you seeing this anyways...(for example i think we have already agreed that sadness or crying is not always a distraction...loss of it can be quite boring...without less what seeming is more...)

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.

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 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.
https://sites.google.com/site/bomanism/

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...

[Jayson]

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

I think i agree entirely with the forward...

Mr. Lee was a smart man.

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..

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

one's self is not seen as a constant.
Self is seen as one's nature, rather than one's essential self.
Though nature means the same description (the essential - fundamental - components and identities of a being or thing) as essence, it is seen as different in the respect to motion.

Nature moves; essence does not.
Nature is alive; an essence is an identity for association.

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.

[Abstract]

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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...

Nature moves; essence does not.
Nature is alive; an essence is an identity for association.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

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?

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.

So you get rid of the distraction of getting rid of distractions?

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.

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.

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...__________

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...

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.

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...

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."

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?

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.

[Abstract]

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?

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.

Oh that makes more sense...

So you get rid of the distraction of getting rid of distractions?

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 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...

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.

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...__________

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

[Abstract]

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?

[Abstract]

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...

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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...

[Abstract]

“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.

[Jayson]

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...

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).

[Jayson]

“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.

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

[Abstract]

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).

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...

[Abstract]

“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.

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

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...

[Abstract]

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…

[Abstract]

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...

[Abstract]

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

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...

[Jayson]

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...

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."

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…

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 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…

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.

"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...

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.

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

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.

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

Suicide

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.

And many others are chancy…like smoking…might end up doing that till you die…or heroin…

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

But I think you mean to see past these things as other events leads one to see these as invaluable to the self nature?

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.

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...

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.

[Abstract]

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."

I saw that rather i was pointing out what might stand out more to some...

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.

i recognize the intention, I'm just suggesting how some might be pushed away...takeing the whole thing in without putting on filtering glasses it all makes sense, but if someone sees that first they put on there filtering glasses...some people do...

"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...

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.

Indeed, no textual thing works best without a descriptor...(teacher...describer...)

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

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.

But might one find the ability to balance such as not to become to sick within a state of rapidly continuous enlightenments?

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

Suicide

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.

I would say most actions are responses to other actions...a degradation leads to a further degradation...

But I think you mean to see past these things as other events leads one to see these as invaluable to the self nature?

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.

Value is relative, and as such all things really do have value...but what i meant is that these things might be of a type for which relative to you there is nothing to be gained that would be wanted at that time.

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...

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.

What I was alluding to was that one doesn't start out teaching what you would be teaching through this by starting by saying you have to commit suicide or suggesting that is a good idea...Who know it could be for some but it is important to consider the order with regards to getting any idea across...

[Abstract]

last thoughts though:

“The third Silence, is to sit outside and focus on all sound that is heard until all sound is not noise, but naturally independent parts of a unified existence; that beyond oneself. To hear all sound as without competition of each other; to hear each piled on top of each other, but distinguishable from each other at the same time, and to do so without stress on the mind; so to train the mind to allow that which is to be that which is instead of what the mind wants it to be.”

I find all sound as music so long as I wish, but much can induce harm to others and as such I find need for encouraging distance till others might find a means to see past their distracting natures.

“The fifth Silence is to walk mindful of one's movement and with focus on moving naturally and without jerking; to learn how to step each step smoothly. To learn only to focus on this, even among people; not mindful of their eyes or thoughts; to simply become natural and balanced in movement - so to learn balance of the body in motion, and to be mindful of the body.”

Personally I would think better of just allowing the body its natural movement, disregarding any pressure that might lend to a need to change its condition, lest it is a movement like unintentional butt grabbing or something…

------

I like your ideas regarding addiction: From physical to mental to spiritual…I think of spiritual addiction as being an addiction that was performed so much that it became say a habit of all things that influence you such that there is no escape…

-----

And I like points like, “Even 'healthy' living can become an addiction.”

I once had the thought that one should be careful not to do too much…but then if one is not to ever do too much they must also not do too much of not-doing-too-much…


I consider that if everyone began always consuming exactly the amount of say calcium that is said to be best…say 90 counts, then over time after many generations of that habit…our great distant children may be unable to having anything but exactly 90 counts, as their bodies weaken to the ability to resist variation…As enough variation is good in so far as it prevents striction to inescapable conformity.

----

Finally why the name “Bomanism”?

[Jayson]

i recognize the intention, I'm just suggesting how some might be pushed away...takeing the whole thing in without putting on filtering glasses it all makes sense, but if someone sees that first they put on there filtering glasses...some people do...

Agreed.

But might one find the ability to balance such as not to become to sick within a state of rapidly continuous enlightenments?

Using the electrical engineering as a basis, technically, the limit would be the speed of light for the balance between the highest point of a phase (active) to the lowest point of a phase (rest).
However, considering that the human body has a limit to acumen association to organization and rationally having a grasp on what it is taking in, measured as the processing Hz, which is around 100 Hz for the average brain, and does so in what is called parallel and distributed computation (as opposed to a computer which traditionally uses serial centralized computation [meaning, a series of instructions are generated by the act itself specifically, rather than the human brain's means of reacting instantly without prescribed syntax inherited as a requirement]), then I would say that the rate of rapidity is rather high for the human, but still has a limit.
That limit is subjective, however, so there is no means by which I could easily state what is too much for the average human.

What we do know is that if you remove reflection, rest time from taking in at which you then have the time to reflect and organize experiences, then you can generate greater confusion and unrest.

So I would answer that any rapidity you wish to try is possible, but I would hazard the same as any practitioner of any form of exercise that everyone should heed their body when it tells them to slow down so that you do not harm yourself.

I would say most actions are responses to other actions...a degradation leads to a further degradation...

Indeed, the Transpertinence section has a little figure at the bottom that does read Action/Reaction, but that was much debated in my mind for a great length because the way I actually view that is Reaction/Reaction.
I only chose to go with the standard for articulation of the concept to the general impression.

But yes, degradation can lead to further and further.
That is why it is important to realize what it is and that it is within your control.
Otherwise it can appear to be a thing that has taken control of you and is now running you to a detrimental end you feel approaching but cannot stave.

Something that is not written in that write up, but that I hold is this:
You are how you react.

This is similar in share to a Christian line found in Matthew 15:11:
it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.
The context was discussing slightly different pretext's, but the same concept is being discussed; that what you choose to react (do); that is your control and that is what will be your danger.

Value is relative, and as such all things really do have value...but what i meant is that these things might be of a type for which relative to you there is nothing to be gained that would be wanted at that time.

I respond in general regard with medical health's standards on the matter, however; I considered the ramifications of what I was asserting beyond that for many years.
What of the serial killer, what of the drug fanatics, what of these?

And in reflecting at great length of meditation upon the entire concept in relation to what most would consider ill conditions, Bomanism stands applicable whether they wish to not be as they are or do.
If their nature, for instance, is something with which they find will always be with drugs; if that relationship between themselves and the inanimate object of drugs is a chief relationship of life rather than the relationship between their self and others, or their self and existing, then it is this relationship by which all other aspects of their life should be weighed.

It then becomes a degradation of concern upon their relationship to their drug, or for the serial killer which has an abnormal neurology, their relationship with their impulse (typically derived from the pursuit of interaction in some emotion only gained during those moments that are hideous to the grand population).

The question ceases to be about these matters, but a matter which Bomanism does not address; the issue of society and being within society when anominal to strong degrees from society's (a collective of peoples among oneself) wants.

These are issues that are best addressed by the society in all manners with which a society addresses these matters.
There, unfortunately, is no rest for being anominal in strong degrees of repulsion to society unless a person can accept general rejection, repulsion, confusion, and restraint as the response from society upon their person for their nature.

If they can accept these things, and are in balance with their nature only during these times and find their self suffocating without, then by the standards of Bomanism they are content.

This does not mean that any other would or should condone their contentment in these actions.
It simply means that contentment can be reached in more than one societal perceived manner, whether they are inhumane, self destructive physically, simply benign yet offensive, or within the mean of societal acceptance.

That stated, as we now have learned from neurology; there is commonly an augmentation that is in play for many extremely radical and inhumane or physically self destructive behaviors.

So while the philosophy of Bomanism itself presents no specific way in which these conditions would be inherently in error if the individual did not feel such, I personally would disagree with my own philosophy due to my personal morals on the matter; morals that are left out of the philosophy.

What I was alluding to was that one doesn't start out teaching what you would be teaching through this by starting by saying you have to commit suicide or suggesting that is a good idea...Who know it could be for some but it is important to consider the order with regards to getting any idea across...

Indeed it is.
Even the order in which each section precedes and follows in the text itself took considerable meditation to ensure the exact thoughts would be more likely in place and understood before another which relied upon the previous.

[Jayson]

I find all sound as music so long as I wish, but much can induce harm to others and as such I find need for encouraging distance till others might find a means to see past their distracting natures.

Where as I would encourage to go further in.
Distance will naturally arrive in any repulsion their body delivers to them. Our natural reflexes tell us our limits.
I did not discuss this in Bomanism, but will most likely in a further accompanying write-up, but when your body recoils in some regard; stop.
You can push again later.
Just like muscle, you do not want to hyperextend yourself to the splits by forcing yourself straight to the fullest spread.

Personally I would think better of just allowing the body its natural movement, disregarding any pressure that might lend to a need to change its condition, lest it is a movement like unintentional butt grabbing or something…

That was the intended meaning.
To learn not to fight how your body moves, but to let it move with ease. To listen to your body; to listen to how it wants to move.
You don't have to stay that way forever; it is merely a practice.

I like your ideas regarding addiction: From physical to mental to spiritual…I think of spiritual addiction as being an addiction that was performed so much that it became say a habit of all things that influence you such that there is no escape…

Indeed, spiritual addictions can be some of the most lethal to your self if you are not aware and careful.
This is most likely why people have such aversion to large groups of spiritual groupings; there is a fear of losing the self in that big ocean.

And I like points like, “Even 'healthy' living can become an addiction.”

I once had the thought that one should be careful not to do too much…but then if one is not to ever do too much they must also not do too much of not-doing-too-much…

Precisely; it is recursive.
Which relates back around to the concepts of asceticism and monasticism; that a person should be careful to not remove so much in their pursuit as to have accomplished the opposite of their aim.

Finally why the name “Bomanism”?

Perhaps it wasn't as clear as it should have been in the Introduction under Focus, so I'll bold here:
"This is the ongoing compilation of the Balance of Motion and Nature, or Bomanism."

[Abstract]

Using the electrical engineering as a basis, technically, the limit would be the speed of light for the balance between the highest point of a phase (active) to the lowest point of a phase (rest).
However, considering that the human body has a limit to acumen association to organization and rationally having a grasp on what it is taking in, measured as the processing Hz, which is around 100 Hz for the average brain, and does so in what is called parallel and distributed computation (as opposed to a computer which traditionally uses serial centralized computation [meaning, a series of instructions are generated by the act itself specifically, rather than the human brain's means of reacting instantly without prescribed syntax inherited as a requirement]), then I would say that the rate of rapidity is rather high for the human, but still has a limit.
That limit is subjective, however, so there is no means by which I could easily state what is too much for the average human.

What we do know is that if you remove reflection, rest time from taking in at which you then have the time to reflect and organize experiences, then you can generate greater confusion and unrest.

So I would answer that any rapidity you wish to try is possible, but I would hazard the same as any practitioner of any form of exercise that everyone should heed their body when it tells them to slow down so that you do not harm yourself.

What i am suggesting then is that perhaps what some call enlightenment would be what you might call the state at which a person is experiencing the highest rate of occurent enlightenments that can remain beneficial.

in my mind for a great length because the way I actually view that is Reaction/Reaction.

I would say exactly...we have words for cause and then a word for effect, but any effect is a cause of something else and any cause is an effect of something else we really it should be one word of some sort...But then in reality it is a continuous function not a dot...dot....dot....dot so there is not an exact moment of cause/effect/reaction, it is almost as if it is all one big continuum of reacting.

Something that is not written in that write up, but that I hold is this:
You are how you react.

This is similar in share to a Christian line found in Matthew 15:11:
it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.
The context was discussing slightly different pretext's, but the same concept is being discussed; that what you choose to react (do); that is your control and that is what will be your danger.

Indeed you can't tell much about a person by looking at their stagnate form you have to rely on the actions, the doings.

These are issues that are best addressed by the society in all manners with which a society addresses these matters.
There, unfortunately, is no rest for being anominal in strong degrees of repulsion to society unless a person can accept general rejection, repulsion, confusion, and restraint as the response from society upon their person for their nature.

If they can accept these things, and are in balance with their nature only during these times and find their self suffocating without, then by the standards of Bomanism they are content.

My only qualm with this is that it may be important to consider how one's pursuit of a thing may lend to others following when it does not benefit them...And while often people can learn to not do follow blindly...in terms of the growth of society as a whole if the society as a whole begins to do something or becomes addicted to a non-beneficial behavior then it can become detrimental to the survival of mankind...So it can be important i think to not lend to such degrading habits that might pervade society as a whole...(personally I might think alcoholism...) And if everyone is free to behave as they feel, then it becomes a problem with those who wish to simply kill everyone else...but then that would seem like a self fixing issue typically...

That stated, as we now have learned from neurology; there is commonly an augmentation that is in play for many extremely radical and inhumane or physically self destructive behaviors.

I believe It is being shown that genetic disorders are caused by environmental things, that could otherwise be prevented such as to rule out such tendencies...Though some have causes hard to pinpoint, if ever possible...(and then there is a problem with who decides what is a "disorder" and deserves being ruled out.)Example: If a whole population continues to take aspirin for headaches over time given many generations of use say maybe 200-300 the brain begins to produce less of its natural headache fighting chemicals, assuming the behavior of taking the thing was performed before procreation...as a result people could begin to have to take aspirin or some drug in order to prevent headaches...

[Abstract]

Where as I would encourage to go further in.
Distance will naturally arrive in any repulsion their body delivers to them. Our natural reflexes tell us our limits.
I did not discuss this in Bomanism, but will most likely in a further accompanying write-up, but when your body recoils in some regard; stop.
You can push again later.
Just like muscle, you do not want to hyperextend yourself to the splits by forcing yourself straight to the fullest spread.

My policy is if there seems to be continual and extensive enough resistance disassociation is typically a good idea.

Personally I would think better of just allowing the body its natural movement, disregarding any pressure that might lend to a need to change its condition, lest it is a movement like unintentional butt grabbing or something…

That was the intended meaning.
To learn not to fight how your body moves, but to let it move with ease. To listen to your body; to listen to how it wants to move.
You don't have to stay that way forever; it is merely a practice.

i figured as much , alot of my understanding of being free in my body came from trying hard to be a certain way... for others initially...

And I like points like, “Even 'healthy' living can become an addiction.”

I once had the thought that one should be careful not to do too much…but then if one is not to ever do too much they must also not do too much of not-doing-too-much…

Precisely; it is recursive.
Which relates back around to the concepts of asceticism and monasticism; that a person should be careful to not remove so much in their pursuit as to have accomplished the opposite of their aim.

Indeed it seems to me that many things when taken to the "extreme" if that is a good word, are contradictory. For example if everything was completely categorized everything would be perfectly separated, and if everything was perfectly separated nothing would really be existent or functional...or the opposite extreme if nothing was recognized as different then there would be no frame of reference to recognize anything and it would be as if nothing existed...Or even if you have no Bad then how can one know what is Good...Without more how can there be less...although i imagine if you have at least known what bad was and continued to know then it might be possible to live in a place with no bad (but then it could be said that bad still exits, just in the past)...

Finally why the name “Bomanism”?

Perhaps it wasn't as clear as it should have been in the Introduction under Focus, so I'll bold here:
"This is the ongoing compilation of the Balance of Motion and Nature, or Bomanism."

Oh...