Specialization in Textual Studies

[deci belle]

The absolute position cannot be pictured in the mind of the unenlightened person. It doesn't matter who. Entry into inconceivability can only be activated by one's own enlightening being which is not a matter of one's own power, personality, or intellectual gravity.

 

If and when the switch occurs, and one does the flip conceiving no-mind and non-doing all-at-once, it has never been a matter of one's own doing. How much less has it ever been one's own understanding? Even at the words of storied prior illuminates upon realization, they were already steeped in just this potency of all-at-once and amongst the living transmission of peers.

 

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have to be that way at all. It's just now.

 

Here it must be recognized that specialization in textual studies is most problematic due to the fact that affinity is not within the realm of words. Some people have expressed a striving mentality in order to "understand the meaning of the original classics" (self-translated to boot).

 

The authentic teachings are beyond words. That the unspeakable is described in the works of enlightened prior illuminates since ancient times, their meaning is only in the application of the unspeakable itself in terms of everyday ordinary situations.

 

Reality itself has no meaning. It never has and it never will. It just is. So be it. Awaken to it now as is, no different than your own everyday mind without making arrangement beforehand.

 

What percentage of the content of numberless forum threads and topics are simply a pastime of discussing another's words with yet more words understood as others' understanding? And then further bothering to state intellectual agreement or not. There is no need to do the math, I suspect.

 

Maintaining positions based on learning and referential distinctions of provisional teachings in order to refute that which is currently beyond one's nonpsychological capacity is delusional and this should be avoided at all costs by those who contemplate affinity in terms of a basis in the real.

 

Subtle operation within a living recognition of one's inherent affinity with the wordless is the ability to deal with situations in terms of an immediate application of one's potential inherent in the situation itself, not relying on one's own power, and not in terms of an understanding based on circumstantial psychologies of self and other.

 

Adaption isn't a convention concerned with getting along or going along. Therefore, in terms of impersonal adaption, it is most important not to get confused as this leaks potential and one is then forced to go along with the karmic momentum of the situation— this being the antithesis of all of the world-honored authentic teachings.

 

Panda complains (claims) that I have no position. Had she known that her accusation is a compliment of the highest order, I doubt she would have admitted her resentment in those words. For her part, she continually confuses transcendent tenets that are strictly and traditionally qualified in the authentic teachings of the Kashmiri and Chinese patriarchs with the words, "Do not show these teachings who those who have not clarified the basis."

 

I do not include this traditional warning for two reasons: first, I cannot pick my audience, and second, those words would only inflame the resentments of the intellectualists and professional teachers who want to speculate with my threads— if only to seek opportunities to chip away at the author. They hardly notice that I RARELY post on their threads, if ever— dare I admit I am wont to actually visit their creations. Why would I? I'm not here to learn anything. What's to know? I specialize in the actualization of not-knowing.

 

If one can apply the inherent potential of each situation in terms of matching karmic momentum, one then frees this situational creative potential and absorbs it impersonally. Buddhists call this saving energy. Taoists call it stealing potential.

 

Responding to threads and posts is no different. When one wishes to respond to threads topically treating entry into the inconceivable such as I do, it is simply not appropriate to habitually make reference to provisional, intellectually biased, lopsided creationist/eternalist, and half-baked literal devices of philosophical origin. One must come from a personal experience and application.

 

Otherwise how can it be on-topic? Textual studies aren't based on reality, they just give reality a name. Poring over names given to reality aren't applicable to descriptions of the first-water. I write for perhaps .05% of the users of this forum (including the vast majority of users who have never bothered to register— and who blames them?).

 

In alpinism, the traditional and life-lengthening dictum is not to get on climbs or ski-descents until one is ready. Unfortunately, those armed only with an intellectual bent (or less), an opinion, some memorized passages and a few formal practices and perhaps having completed a cultural immersion by virtue of employing an organized spiritually-oriented tourist destination-management firm can make hay out of any thread that suits their fancy (if only to justify the monetary outlay).

 

Those with affinity prove it in actual affairs by dealing with the situation in terms of immediate adaption on the situation's terms~ in terms of what it is, all the while one's counterparts are involved with conceptual ramifications out of habit.

 

A very good analytical tool is to study the "five ranks" of Cao Dong Chan buddhism. When "arriving with both together", is freely applied, there is dealing with particulars in terms of particulars without attaching to either extreme of absolute or relative. One does not stoop to conceptual fabrications to suit one's polemic a priori posture because one does not, in fact, have a posture or a position to express or maintain.

 

If I keep saying the same thing after five years now, consider the bent of your activities. There's a whole lot of you and about .05% of me at any given time. Those are good enough odds. I seem to be rocking this pig ranch just fine. Wouldn't you have to agree?

 

Thus, one accomplishes adaption to complete reality alone. In this singularity is the situation, oneself and others, inherent karmic potential, and the continuity of selfless wonder unbroken— where "neither the person nor the objective world [are] snatched away".

 

By avoiding an habitual specialization speculating in formal textual studies and their social, professional and psychological ramifications in actual situations, those with affinity see affinity in terms of reality in themselves without differentiating unreality, words, and delusional understandings inherent in the situation itself. The good in this is not to be considered good. It is just cutting through the cultural bullshit resolutely in order to pass through passing through without traces of enlightenment.

 

Otherwise, there is entrapment by virtue of intellectualization, verbal understanding, opinions relative to self and other, and biased resentments based on ideas of enlightenment or ignorance.

 

At such times, intellectualists should ask themselves how it is, since mind is already enlightened nature, why do they themselves see words and not an affinity when it comes to textual studies?

 

It doesn't require academically fashionable page-long paragraphs to deduce.

 

 

 

 

ed note: about six typos sprinkled throughout the OP

Edited September 1, 2014 by deci belle