Wait a Zen

 This is something I have started, and perhaps will never fully complete:

a fools wish come true…by me, and you, and the entire human disgrace...

the next step is now…

(some questions asked, and some answers to come – this is not a complete list, or should ever be)

Question 1: Can one of a certain “nature” be part of another type of “nature”?

For this question to be answered, one has to be aware of what nature is, or what is being meant by the term nature, and perhaps then only, one can become aware of what the nature is of the self, or in Buddhist terms, rather, the SELF, trying to answer this question asked.

So let’s begin shall we...but with a road map, and not a specific direction, or route to follow. Let’s see if we can realize, or answer, and come to terms with what is being said, thought, and practiced. Unfortunately not in a linear, or academic way, or path, but in a natural thought trend unobstructed by illogical, or motivational rituals created to control, and subordinate our minds away from the truth, or the absence of truth.

So can we begin now?

Let’s see...

What the purpose of life is, is merely, not only, if only, of the opinion of oneself, by oneself. It should not be that life, or nature, is what it is only found within our experience of it. There is also the trend of non-experience, or fact, the law of nature, which brings about the existence of it. But what is the nature of a sentient being, such as a human, when it ceases to exist in this nature, that supposedly exists?

We shall begin with the age-old analogy of experience, and the perception of experience. That one is, and for one is, there is also that which one is not. Yin and Yang. The opposites. Darkness and Light. Yet not all things are found within this duality. Life is not a symmetrical expression. The opposite is merely as is, a way of perceiving the element of truth. What the opposite actually entails, is the perception of the self in relation to another. Though if one were to accept the concept of the opposite, then one must also realize, the concept of the self, existing only within itself. As in, the portrayal of self is not found outside of it. Yet, as I believe, the self is a creation by the SELF, and also its experience of itself outside of itself. But some would argue, that the self is not separate from the SELF, but is rather one. That the existence of the self is found within the existence of all. Or rather, that description comes through realization of the self separate from the world outside of the SELF. That the self only exists part of the separation of it, from something. SELF in Buddhist terms, is the sole mode of removal of reality, or life, from the self. The experience of nothingness, or the being of nihilism, the entity of non-existence.

To be less boring, and shrouded in mystery, or passing through the absence of logic, we should consider, that sentient existence is not self expressed, and not in totality with the existence of all things apart from itself. Life, supposedly, goes on without us, though the experience of life, by the sentient self, is merely what it is, a biological phenomenon. The intrusion of sentience unto non-sentience is perhaps a flaw on our end, but so to speak, sentience is what it is, not for itself, but rather a creation of nature. Or life. Sentient existence exists through life, life is not solely sentient existence. Or as modern man assumes, to be solely human. Creation, or the act of beginning, or birth, is not a reality, it is that which is perceived to be reality. Buddhists, and nihilists, believe, or do not believe rather, in the existence of non-existence. The edge, or beginning, or ending, of existence. That the beginning is the end of the ending. A circle. Or what some would call it, a cycle. Yet it is not it. Time is not measured through existence, but rather through the absence of non-existence, yet the men of mindedness believe that for existence to exist, non-existence, must also, or rather the definition, logically assumes it. Though at this point, existence may be the only thing too exist. It is a notion of duality, but the absence, or exclusion, of the dual nature of existence.

If the perception of non-existence, as in the removal of human, or sentient experience, of the SELF from the self, then yes, not even non-existence can be experienced, only non-experience, or non-sentience. Yet existence, it being experienced by us, is a removal of non-sentience from existence. This contradiction is only possible, if non-sentience can be experienced, which it cannot be by definition. The non-experience of existence is non-sentience, and for duality to possibly exist, the law of opposites, we are already experiencing non-experience in death, or the realization of the absence of life in our lives. If death is after sentient life, then non-experience, even, through the reality of reality, is still existing. So one, a sentient being, does not cease to exist, one ceases to be sentient. For sentience to be experienced, the cause, or reason for sentience, has to be re-enacted. Or realized again. Some, unfortunately, have taken it upon themselves, to glorify sentient human existence above all else, and has found life even in death. But forget about that, for now. The question now is, is the absence of existence (all matter), non-existent? Can non-existence, even exist?

The answer is simple, but not surely correct. Existence being even that which does not exist, is also the holder of the truth that beyond it is non-existence, or the absence of existence. Not just non-sentience, or just matter, or the absence of truth, but the reality of non-reality.

Basically the existence of existence is merely a precursor, a truth, but also perhaps a fallacy. A way to assume that one is in ones own mind, even a rock, or a speck of dust, or a glorified celestial object like the moon orbiting earth, a planet, only what it is, and only what it can be not. As in, without description, or definition, it is as is, but also cannot be. So the notion of fact is the ending of the end of things, or before the beginning of the existence of things.

But to answer the question of relevance unto what is, and what is not. One cannot assume that death is the opposite of life. One can only assume, and must, that death is a part of life. As in without life there can be no death. Without death, there can be no life. Sentient existence within itself is not life solely. Life is what it is, and what it can be not, is surely irrelevant for there are many alternatives to what we experience, may experience, and will experience. It is fact. There is no room for an opposite if the opposite only exists for the basic fact or reality. Basically this brings about the precursor to existence. Non-existence. Therefor nature is only found in existence. Could it be that existence is nature? Or that the absence of nature is non-existence? You can fool a man, but you cannot fool no-one. Your self is only of such a state found within itself. Whether conscious of it or not. Many would argue that we are separate from each other, excluding non-sentient, or non-intelligent beings of course, for we do not consider them.

Many know that Adolf Hitler is a person that committed heinous acts of murder and torture, and do assume that he is only himself, though I would argue, alongside few, that he is, or was, molded by the society that he found himself in. He was taught that to be a human, one is superior, and to fend off or destroy humans, based on whatever they exhibit or practice rather, is a justified response to uphold and portray his and his society’s superiority. Not that is an excuse for doing something so horrible and dreadful in the first place, but rather an observation. Much can be said about this interpretation of Darwinism, yet philosophy being a practical emblem, is not what it is solely, it is a part of the biological phenomenon explained by the theory of natural selection. It may be too cruel to justify, but it is a reality nonetheless.

To get back to the reality of non-existence, is perhaps the flaw in what it is. Is it, a form of existence non-existent, or is it another form of what is existent? Basically the definition of nature concludes that for existence to exist, it has to have certain elements, or rules, for it to be. Nature within itself, can theoretically, be found, only in this form of existence, or that the need for fact is this form of existence, or reality.

I used to use the terms; life, reality, and existence. It is three things, but only one thing, or no-thing, as will be discussed, and perhaps proven in due course. I say one thing, or no-thing, because it can be at least. What it is, is phenomenon, or scientific fact observed, but is it all that exist, or needs too exist for it too exist? As in oxygen, water, soil, creates life, but is life only created by it, or could life, or existence within itself, be created by something else rather? Life is not sentient solely, it is also what some would consider, a culmination of many factors, making one thing, or something. I guess the irony is, for we are, we could also be not. Death.

So what is nature, or life? And what is nature in relation to observed fact, or existential conclusion? Nature, as I see it, is all that exists. It can be of many a sort. But, I also know that it can not exist. Meaning, for it too exist, it also does not. So, this question asked at first, is mostly in relation, to our human understanding of our nature. So for example, we think that nature is conclusive, as stated in psychology, as a certain behavior of a being. A term utilized for it to describe, the personality, or ID, or ego, of a human being. I say human being, because, to be frank, humans, in general, does not care about non-human beings, or their experiences of life in their own way. But should that be utilized as an excuse to ignore our fundamental understanding of what nature is? We use the term human nature, but is there even such a thing? Is nature, something that expects from us, that which we have become, or do at this point in time? I don’t regard nature, as behaviorist, or psychological. I consider it to be separate from that which we are also. So nature is the complexity of all things together, one, and not separate. So why ask the question? Basically too expect, and understand, what we as humans, consider to be what is called nature. Scientists, in general, assume the realization of this complexity, but has broken it all down into fragments, or pieces, to be understood separately, to be considered completely. This is mostly a philosophical dilemma, or problem, though, and not scientific. For science deals with what is, and what may be, but not what is, and what could be. It may seem the same thing, but it is not, for the way too express that which is, are more words than what we have created during our lifetimes. Also nature ought not to be description, or fact, as previously assumed, it can also be of a bogus sort, different or alternate to what it is. So therefor, one can be of a different nature as to what one supposedly is.

2. Is nature all that exists? Or rather, is nature that which exists? (especially if it is the sole thing/mode of existence)

To answer this question, one must not relate solely to the discourse found within meaning – or the debate per se. There is no, or should be no, debate onto the relevance of meaning, for meaning, if debated, is meaningless. Not meaninglessness in the sense of nihilist jargon, or emphasis on the bland, and standard, or average. The purpose of debating meaning is to subvert the mind away from that which is meaningful. To be sentient is not a form of meaningfulness. And neither a form of meaninglessness. What is meant from the transference of attention, or worry, towards debating meaning, as in the what is the meaning of life question, is only found to be seen in memory.

If I were to say time is a form of meaning, or it has created meaning, or for some, as they call it, nature or existence (for there are those who consider the scientific exclamation, or realization of time, as existence, or nature, who are called pantheists) should I draw attention towards realizing within the understanding of what time (or meaning rather) is, which I cannot fully hold accountable if it were not solely human, which it clearly is not. Perhaps our lives are merely transferable notions brought out by nature to account for our sentience found inside on the outside. As stated as to the need for proclaiming oneself to be real, or not real. Reality isn’t the reason for meaning, and neither is meaning the reason for reality. For meaning is not reality, for it must be understood, and proclaimed as such first, through our generalized, and limited perspective of things. Some would call it relativism. Which I do not agree with. Science, as practiced today is not providing some humans with meaning through their observations. Meaning in the general sense is what is the purpose of life in any given context, and science, for it to be clearly understood, has to be seen only as what it does, and not what it is supposedly meant to do. Science is the observation of laws, or natural laws, and how it has impacted, is impacting, and will impact, our lives, and beyond (the cosmic state). It doesn’t create morality, or perception. It does not enforce proclamation of meaning in a sense relating to how you should feel about tying your shoelaces, or how you should feel about your abdomen. Many believe that science is a form of brainwashing, but it is not supposed to portray it in an anthropomorphic sense. It doesn’t say that man is the center of existence, or humankind, as some of us would like to believe. It neither says that we’re irrelevant, for it is natural too exist. Science is misunderstood today for what it does not offer us, a dream like natural world.

The realization of susceptibility to error, or human error, is what drives forward the disregard people have, and have had, up till now, which statistically will not change, their relation to science, or the observance of natural laws, or states driving forward certain events in human lives. That we have made ourselves the center of the cosmos many years ago due to sentience, or the observance of us being the observers of nature, or existence, and have made mistakes due to flaws in our upbringing (in a generalized) fashion exclaims the absurdity that is found in the debate of meaning in a world not supposed to be meaningful at first. For meaning is not to absorb, or annihilate boredom, or need. It is not something to die for. Meaning is a word used for the effect we have on our own lives. Humans, have become, in the modern age, dependent on their own interpretation of meaning through the amount of effort they provide their daily rituals, or activities. That meaning is found in activity is inane, for some do not do something ever. They are the dead. They are the non-sentient (think rocks). There is no denying that they also exist, or have existed. Meaning isn’t understanding our position in nature, or in any way related to our mental framework in accordance to it. For one can be placed into many situations. We can also ignore that which is not important to us and them. Basically meaning is not found through the observation of natural laws, or life, therefor science does not provide us with meaning. So in future, when you state a fact, do not declare it as something meaningful. It is merely an observation calculated by scientists.

To push the argument forward, or rather the introduction to this question, one only need to look at those, humans coincidentally, that state that, for science says this, we must behave like this. Scientific thinking merely exclaims that 1 plus 1 equals to 2. It doesn’t say that we have to use that equation always to reach the answer of 2. It is not convincing, and people sorely believe they need to be convinced, for if they are not, it is not relevant onto the nature of everything, which is absurd, yes, but to say to the fool, you are being a fool, is not quite as effective, as merely noting that fact, and utilizing other means to address the issue at hand. In this case, at the back of my mind is the notion, or observation, of human created climate change as expounded by a teenager, at this point in time, called Greta Thunberg. Her exact words in a UN climate change conference, or something, “for more than 30 years the science has been crystal clear”. She was nominated for a Nobel Prize under some category, and have won numerous accolades (for some arbitrary reasons – think; her being a child, or teenager). Some people don’t even know who she is, or even consider climate change created by humans in the world of today; 2020 AD. For science says this, does not mean that 1; people will listen, and change their actions. Science is not indoctrination, otherwise it won’t be scientific. The eminent Richard Dawkins, which few people know who even exist (an evolutionary biologist), says: “how totally ridiculous that is”. What he is saying is that scientists don’t believe based on scientific fact, they believe because they know it is scientific fact, which he claims, correctly, is not in relation to religious belief based on theological fact. He uses the word ridiculous because he cannot have a conversation with someone that does not know what they believe. Though, also, to him, it does not matter what he, or another person believes, for scientific thinking is not thought based. That’s why he denies UFOs, or telepathy too exist, for the reason that it has not been proven, like which gender a cow has to be to be female before it became a female. To him the question of how it became is less relevant than what is now. He said those words in a gag he did about the need for scientists to even consider what happened millions of years ago on this planet called Earth, by ourselves. Meaning, he stated that to agree about something is easy, but to see it with your own eyes is literally impossible, because that amount of information takes time to be even reasonable to believe. Some religions uses the term days in their scriptures. Scientists though, or the real ones, I must say, are not trying to tell you what to think, they are saying what they think. For Greta to state that the science has been crystal clear, is not true, for science equals knowledge, and not the action of knowing. She should have said, the rumor is true, we have screwed ourselves over in such a short time due to our own inability to free ourselves from our domesticated minds and lives. But in all honesty and sincerity to Greta, Richard Dawkins wants her to prove that humans are even able to fix their actions, or effects, in relation to this so-called human created climate change. Is she able to prove it? I don’t think so, because that is the next question she should ask herself instead of propagating conscientiousness, or morality, or the absence of guilty pleasures in a primate gone domesticated, or rather, gone boring.

I don’t really want to discuss the lives people lead, but to assume that being a certain kind of human is being the correct kind of human, is not scientific, but rather the need for some kind of alternate meaningful existence as a human for a human too discuss. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (the German philosopher) said, only the strong will survive, or survival of the fittest. So if humans, in this case, are able to live in the effects of human created climate change, most philosophers, and scientists even, won’t disagree with that. That’s what Greta does not know, and may not ever. If you can swim, when you are not supposed too, then you should also be given an accolade like Greta, a Swedish person, for swimming when you’re not supposed too. She is basically saying; the fire burns, so we should kill the fire. She doesn’t say the fire burns so we should not burn, or learn too, and that is exactly what everyone else is doing. They go on with their lives, and their abdomens, throughout their short lifespans. Greta has too learn, without considering green capitalism – or in her case green socialism (welfarism), that all go through the same motions on a daily basis. There is no difference between a homeless person, or someone who has lost their crops due to a drought stricken in their region. Greta should not assume, that the more people who believe, will make the world eventually a better place. Not because it is wrong to stand up for something you believe in, but to exclaim that it is meaningful to believe in something good is of no consequence if it is only good for now, for that is what it is in this case. Her issue is with politicians, and coincidentally not with corporations and the general public.

How can she even assume that her foundation or movement will even succeed at what it does, if the only thing it does is wanting us to become of a certain breed forever, which is absurd, for scientists will observe this tendency, and wonder, how this actually is making the world a better place, if domesticated animals, such as humans, can only follow a herd mentality, that subordinates them even further as to what they have become?

We should not control nature, or try to change it, we can only adapt, for it has not yet been proven, that we are even able to change ourselves. To conclude this point; opinion is what it is – whether it is scientific, or religious, or moral – it is not something that changes anything – and luckily does not – we can laugh at people like Greta – which they did at this UN conference – but our actions should not be considered meaningful just because it is right, and meaningless just because it is wrong. The notion of pride, or success, or superiority, comes at the removal of the self from what is real unto what is not. Greta, and Richard, should rather know that their minds are only yearning to what they are not, and not what they are.

Which is the actual idea to be stressed in this question, or trick of the mind.

What does this have to do with the existence of nature, or the assumption that it exists, and if it does, is the only thing too exist? Nature within itself is not behavior of a sentient being, coincidentally, solely. Nature is the complete expression of existence. In Zen Buddhist circles, or groups, the assumption of existence is as a matter of being, is found in the emptiness that it possesses. Scientists, and the general public in general, assume for it is, it is. Filled with information, and sensation. Though Zen Buddhists do not believe this. Why is it that they are different, or have differing opinions? Well Zen Buddhists practice sitting meditation also knows as Zazen, which is a form, or way, to remove the self, even only temporarily, from that which is consciousness. They want to experience non-being within their sentient being. The flaw is the external reality which they possibly, always, if practiced correctly, under the right guidance, or intuition, remove themselves from. For it is, it is not nothing. Though all they do, is experience non-experience. This gives them some guidance as to what may occur in death, or as they consider the ritual of dying. Not that they do not live, or do not want to live, but it’s rather a way for them to create the expression of futility in a body functioning under natural laws which is expressed only through itself. The question, and answers they stress upon, is that nothingness exists, as in the ceasing of the sentient – existential – object within a non-conscious reality absolutely.

So, when one considers the afterlife one ought to acknowledge what this present life is that one utilizes in scope to address this curiosity that one has for something so depressing. A way to rationalize the need to consider such a failed proposal is to analyze the need for such a thought in the first place. For how does one know that there is an afterlife? Or rather, one knows of a thing called death or dying, so one must assume that it is some form of transference from this mental sphere occupied coincidentally by the genomes of ones ancestors. One should take this always into account. Though that one can believe what happens in a state, or moment of such supposed calamity is what makes me wonder how people can even maintain such a mind-boggling concept at first. Why think about death and dying? Why even consider what happens in the future in the first place? The future is unwritten. Right? Well supposedly death, or the act of dying, in today’s moderate political, and social climate, is something expected, and understood, by the general populace. Everyone seems to know what happens in death, knowing full well, and giving it a term to begin with. But, unless there are already dead people around on Earth, 2020AD, I don’t think it’s wise for any one of us to state what happens in death, or the moment of dying. The reason why I say this, is because this event or moment is only there in our minds for some purpose other than the 2 hours before the event. Like when you have your last apple pie or LSD tab. In the case of a serial rapist on death row one would assume that the moment of death, and the cause of it, has some reason for being, which I think it does not. The moment of sentient existence, within this bodily function, that ceases medically, and logically, at that point in time, does not in any way explain what happens at the point of death, or the prelude too dying. In any case, we can only assume what happens at that point, but we should always tolerate the opinions of others. Hopefully they do the same.

Nature within itself, is not a conscious experience solely, clearly, but we assume for we are conscious we remain as such, except when we sleep sometimes, even in death. Some call it the redeemer removing the lazy shackles from our conformed minds, and showing us a glimpse of the super-conscious, or as some would state, God’s consciousness. He, she, or it, only has a purpose for them, and those like them in mind, only because they are of a certain mental state or faculty. They are connected with this deity in mind and spirit. Their physical body in this dimension, or reality, is newly recreated, or transformed to be adequate in its regard to this new, or higher level, or plane, of conscious, and physical existence. Coincidentally all these beings in this realm, are human. Maybe there is a dog, and a cat also. Not sure. I think it is absurd to assume one knows what will happen at the point of death, especially when one has not even experienced it. How does one know what one will experience in death, if one does not even know when one dies? Unless you commit suicide right?

3. What’s the problem with nihilism? Or rather, why do we associate meaninglessness with violence, and the step towards persecution, fascism, and genocide?

Again, we rely too much on the “conscious” expression of reality. Or “our” existence, as sentient beings of a certain gene pool, within reality. Nihilism is not the absence of anything other than the realization that it can also just be nothing. As in some thing can also be something else. Or thought is also no-thought. Or a thought is perhaps a conclusion, or continuation, of another thought had before.

In any case for us to be eager to understand what nihilism is, it has to be one of the most fundamental questions, or realizations, for us to have.

Nihilism within itself is the expression of the expressionless. The reasoning behind unreasonableness. Not irrationality, or out of the ordinary. No, rather that “nothing” exists. Not nothingness, for that is something at least, but the reality of non-reality. Space within the space of itself outside of itself. The existence of nothing/no thing.

Yet for us, as animals, or sentient beings, coincidentally alive, that answer, or realization, may seem too vague, and perhaps too absurd for our normal domesticated minds to believe to be true. Yet as we challenge obstacles along the road to freedom, more obstacles arise. It is as if utopia, or the Utopian vision of reality, is getting more, and more out of our grasp. Not cumulatively, or more chaotic as time passes by, but rather the notion, that foresight, or the future, does not exist in our lives. Only the present moment is here. Does that mean then that the end of time is the end of existence? It keeps us at the present right? It being a natural law within the scope of existence expressed by scientists, and even theologians. I cannot even imagine what the end of time brings about.

Reason, the elegance of correct thought, is the exclusion of being unreasonable, because for reason too exist, the exclusion of reason, or unreasonableness, also must. Though mention was made of dualism.

Merely, dogma is seen as unreasonable only when reason exists, to put it more bluntly.

4. What is the purpose of rejecting your humanity? Or rather, if one is human, what does that mean? (animals as persons/persons as animals)