Longevity

 

Excerpt from Pancho Durango and the Zen of Fishing:

Wilson studied a couple of sea gulls fighting over a shred of dead shrimp on the surface of the bay. When the battle no longer held his interest, he turned and asked the old man, “Pancho, how old are you?”

“I am not sure.” Pancho continued to slowly reel and jerk his line, his attention thirty yards out and ten feet deep.

“How can that be?”

“I was born deep in the Copper Canyon. We did not keep records of anything, including birth.”

“Well, we know you are at least in your seventies and perhaps in your eighties.”

“Perhaps.” The conversation held less interest for Pancho than the three dimensional chess match he silently waged with fish that apparently only he could see.

“And you are strong of mind and body. “

“Some apparently believe so.”

“What is the key to longevity?”

Pancho said with no hesitation, and with as much emphasis as you’d expect from a request for another live shrimp to hook for bait, “You live as long as you have something worthwhile to give”.

“And who is the judge of that.”

“Only you of course.”

Wilson frowned as he squinted at the horizon. “So, goodness and righteousness have nothing to do with it?”

“It all depends on what you consider is good and right.”

Wilson sunk his head and smirked apathetically at the ripples beneath his feet. Once again Pancho had blithely turned a simple question into a deep philosophical riddle. Time to rebait the hook and make another cast. Always the right thing to do when you know your next question will be hit out of the park by the old man like a twenty year old on steroids.

268 responses to “Longevity

  1. Excerpted from the book “The End of Suffering”

    http://www.theendofsuffering.org/

    The hidden craziness underlying the conditioned behavior that makes us suffer is the dualistic, “either/or” mode of thinking we have been immersed in since childhood. And its all Aristotle’s influence. Aristotle defined a profoundly dualistic system that he called the “law of the excluded middle”–which asserts that everything in the world is either black, or it’s not black, excluding any other possibilities.

    Most things we read or encounter in life are neither true, nor not true. For example, physicists know it is true that the light we see is neither a wave nor a particle, but can manifest as either. Also, who we truly are as conscious beings is neither physical, nor not physical. The so-called wave-particle paradox and the famous mind-body duality are both examples of incorrectly posed questions, confusingly masquerading as dichotomies. Think of the well-known “glass half-full or half-empty” metaphor … What if it’s neither?

    Our usual black and white dualistic frame of mind almost inevitably creates suffering for ourselves and others, because we seriously misperceive reality — polarizing it into incommensurable opposites and therefore experience delusion. But, once we learn to shed our conditioned awareness and move our consciousness to what the Buddhists call naked existence, we are finally able to experience our lives free of our habitual conditioning.

    This non-dual understanding of reality was perfected by Nagarjuna–the second-century Indian genius and teacher of the “Middle Way”–whom the Dalai Lama described as one of the truly enlightened people of all time. The Middle Way is a very generous path that runs brilliantly between dogmatic, materialistic absolutism and insubstantial nihilism (where nothing means anything). It teaches that ignorance of who we really are and attachment to materiality are at the root of all our suffering.

    • It is not that something is neither true nor not true, it is more like things are true in a relative sense only. There is nothing that is absolutely true. It is always true only in relation to somethging else.

      I do agree that Aristotelian black and white thinking is very limiting and does not always lead to correct estimation of a situation. Even Hubbard was critical of this two-valued logic. He criticized even the three-valued logic used in Engineering as limiting and recommended the infinite-valued logic of a scale to be used. Hubbard was correct if we understand that any value on a scale is relative to other values on that scale.

      There is wave-particle paradox only when viewed from two-valued logic. There is no such paradox when we view wave to be transitioning to a particle mode gradually as the frequency of that wave increases.

      Mind to body is a similar condensation in very small gradient steps. Hubbard did warn us against looking at dichotomies with two-valued logic. He always postulated a scale between dichotomies, such as, right-wrong.

      The infinite-valued logic comes into play automatically when one uses a reality-centric view with as broad conception of reality as possible. When one is using a self-centic view as in spiritual-physical, one is unwittingly using a two-valued logic.

      Nagarujna was my ancestor, and I have studied him briefly. He basically described truth being relative, just as Hubbard said. The only criticism that I have of Hubbard that he did not follow through with what he came up as principles of logic. The proof of that is the present deteriorating condition of Scientology that is following Hubbard’s policies. It is not just the Church of Scientology is not able to follow Hubbard’s policies as Hubbard intended. They are following Hubbard’s intentions quite well actually.

  2. Mark N Roberts

    Afternoon, my good friends.
    Please excuse my communication gap as I have been doing some work, both physical and spiritual. I find ‘doing’ a bit more satisfying than ‘debating’. I have learned a couple of things. They may be of use to some.

    The very nature of a ‘cognition’ and a ‘basic’ on a chain of events has changed for me. I have touched on this before, but the extent was not fully known at that time. I cannot go into very specific details, since the details are different for each, but the principals are the same for all.

    When searching for a past source of current aberrant thought and behavior, there are, of course, key events which, when found, produce some relief. That has been well documented for centuries. LRH and his associates produced the most precise and methodical method of tracking down these events to date. No one system is perfect for all and several errors and shortcomings have already been pointed out in his work. Corrections and revisions will be developed for centuries to come. Entirely new directions of enlightenment are forthcoming.

    When a single source for an aberration is discovered, and a realization is experienced, the work is less than half over. The mass that is blown is only a subconscious reminder of the event and how you have told yourself to operate since then. Like a string tied around your finger as a crutch to help your subconscious memory. Cutting these tons of strings off your fingers removes a tremendous weight from you and releases much clarity, but does not completely clear the fixed opinions and stupidity that have built up over half an eternity. These strings can easily be re-tied at any instant. MASS, AFTER AS-ISING, CAN BE RE-CREATED AT ANY INSTANT.

    In addition, there is no guarantee that the cognition you had upon finding a believed basic on a chain is correct. Exaggerated example: After having a fear of red skinned people, one may get to an incident in which you were harmed by a red skinned person. The cognition could be “Wow, red skinned people really are evil.” Not a valid cognition, but one which, at the time, could produce an F/N and VGIs.

    I mentioned scanning up the track for related incidents after a believed basic incident is reached. This was an understatement. There can be hundreds or thousands of later related incidents which are the basic of their very own variant and adjustment of the original postulate or consideration. EACH ADDITION AND ALTERATION OF THE ORIGINAL POSTULATE MUST BE DISCOVERED TO COMPLETELY FREE YOU FROM IT’S EFFECTS AND TO PREVENT RE-CREATING THE MASS AND RELATED ABERRATION.

    Simply look up the track and find a few score of incidents where you were operating on the basic postulate and gather a full understanding of how you were affected by it and how your opinions changed with additional occurrences. You will find this will produce a lightness, a cleanness, and an ability to think in all directions that you will find astounding.

    If you find yourself unsessionable after a win, as is often the case, make a note of the area of case being looked at, and come back to it with curiosity and enthusiasm. In order to prevent crossing chains and winding up in a bowl of spaghetti, find and write down the most basic purpose, postulate, fixed opinion that you were operating on, and work towards incidents directly related to and/or altering that. The number and speed of finding these incidents makes it impractical to do with an auditor, although a system of getting started with an auditor should be developed.

    This should be done on a large scale when body thetans are not a distraction, and after you have gained a serenity which dissolves by-passed charge. The ability to not find what you are looking for today, and come back to it tomorrow is essential. It is a learned ability which is not that hard with practice. It is worth the effort. As before, positive processes and actively interacting with PT on a daily basis are necessary when doing whole track examination. You must develop your own habits to prevent caving in to your past or others past track that you encounter. It may seem a daunting task, but becomes more fun as it goes along. That is why you must use discipline to do present time interaction every day. Between every session, you should do something that fully involves your attention in present time. That will take care of it. To those who have gotten the idea that past track examination is harmful, read those last two sentences. Problem solved, gains unleashed.
    Mark
    Next: Being led to certain cognitions and how to handle it.

    • Hi Mark

      Interesting looks you have been having….

      I have also changed many of my viewpoints regarding “postulates”, “truth”, “cognitions” and “whys”. It also includes what I consider represents a “basic incident” at any given point.

      I have come to the conclusion that “postulates”, “truth”, “cognitions” and “whys” are all basically the same thing. They are times when you decide “that’s what”, “that’s why”, “that’s how”, “that’s when”, etc. They may or may not reflect any other reality than your own, and they are arrived at circumstantially it seems.

      In my opinion, what is a “basic incident” on any given “chain”, is simply the one that contains the last piece of data one needed in order to create a new postulate about the subject at hand. A being may find that final “aah haa” datum anywhere, on the track, in ones daily living, in a book, in one’s thoughts, in conversations, etc. We are doing this constantly!

      I no longer feel that it is necessary to ransack one’s memories or “track” or “case” as the key method of changing one’s postulates. I do not even consider it true that one need to “find the original postulate”, or any consequent postulates, or any such thing. One simply needs to have the ability to cleanly “change one’s mind”.

      Anything that constitutes a “why find” of some kind, is valid. Auditing is simply addressing a particular data set until one spots enough similarities, differences or identities to make a new postulate about the data.

      I do not consider that one “blows” INCIDENTS when one cognites. I think that all that is happening is that the being has stopped “stressing” (read “building up charge”) over some unwanted condition. The charge that he has built up (is actually creating in present time) simply dissipates when he “resolves” ( considers something true, creates a postulate that “explains the situation”, finds an acceptable WHY, etc… ie “cognites”) the issue at hand. No pictures are refiled in some other “bank” or “mind”. You simply are looking at the data from a different “postulate” or “why” or “point of truth”.

      So… there you have it, just some other “Truths” from another viewpoint.

      Eric

  3. I am looking at the “generality” sub-thread, which started with a post by Oracle. I am in favor of taking a reality-centric view rather than taking pro/anti Hubbard-centric, or pro/anti Scientology-centric views.

    To me some of the Scientology terminology has been more confusing at times than it has brought about clarification of general basic concepts. Terms like OT, Clear, Games conditions, Makes of Games, Survive, etc., have been very unclear by their emphasis in Scientology by Hubbard.

    When Oracle used these terms, it was not surprising the way Conan responded to them. It is good that both Oracle and Conan agree on their purpose of poking through some illusions, but conflict occurs when there is disagreement on what those illusions are.

    From reality-centric viewpoint the purpose is never one of tearing down Hubbard or Scientology, but it is simply to tear down illusions.

    Conan seems to be crtical of Oracle’s extremely pro-Hubbard viewpoint, which I think is not the right way to go about because he seems to be carrying a narrow anti-Hubbard viewpoint compared to a broad reality-centric viewpoint. He definitely dislikes the Scientology vocabulary that Oracle is using.

    Them Marildi jumps in accusing Conan of generality. She is correct in picking on Conan’s narrow anti-Scientology stance, but she is herself carrying a narrow pro-Scientology stance. She fails to see that the actual confusion is coming from the use of Scientology vocabulary that is not very well defined in terms of general reality that exists in the “wog” world.

    I do not think that the issue is generality here, which seems to be Marildi’s favorite. A lot of confusion may be settled by clarifying this Scientology vocabulary in non-Scientology terms.

  4. Tetralemma:

    tet·ra·lem·ma noun
    An argument analogous to a dilemma but presenting four alternatives in the premises.
    tetra- + dilemma

    The tetralemma is a figure that features prominently in the classical logic of India. It states that with reference to any a logical proposition X, there are four possibilities:
    X (affirmation)
    X (negation)
    X (both affirmation and negation)
    x (neither affirmation nor negation)

    The history of fourfold negation, is evident in the logico-epistemological tradition of India, given the categorical nomenclature ‘Indian logic’ in Western discourse. Subsumed within the auspice of Indian logic, ‘Buddhist logic’ has been particularly focused in its employment of the fourfold negation, as evidenced by the traditions of Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

  5. If we focus on the doctrinal agreement that exists between the Wisdom Sūtras[25] and the tracts of the Mādhyamika we note that both schools characteristically practice a didactic negation. By setting up a series of self-contradictory oppositions, Nāgārjuna disproves all conceivable statements, which can be reduced to these four:

    All things (dharmas) exist: affirmation of being, negation of nonbeing.

    All things (dharmas) do not exist: affirmation of nonbeing, negation of being
    .
    All things (dharmas) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation.

    All things (dharmas) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation.

    With the aid of these four alternatives ( affirmation, negation, double affirmation, double negation), Nāgārjuna rejects all firm standpoints and traces a middle path between being and nonbeing. Most likely the eight negations, arranged in couplets in Chinese, can be traced back to Nāgārjuna: neither destruction nor production, neither annihilation nor permanence, neither unity nor difference, neither coming nor going.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuskoti

  6. Two types of discussions or arguments:

    eristic
    adjective

    characterized by disputatious and often subtle and specious or and spurious reasoning.

    Dialectical

    “Dialectical argument is a cooperative, two-sided truth-seeking art that requires having the right knowledge on the subject to be properly qualified to discuss the subject, education and training in proper communication skills, a mind that knows what truth is, is capable of recognizing truth when encountered, a constructive and balanced attitude, and using the best available empirical science and facts, partial only to the truth, to compute the most superior computation, the highest truth possible,

    whereas eristic dialogue is one-sided, quarrelsome, and antagonistic, usually based on specious and spurious reasoning and opinions and beliefs, instead of facts..” — From Douglas Walton’s 1999 book One-Sided Arguments (paraphrased)

    “Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into … the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying ‘uncle’?” — From an article by Mattathias Schwartz in the New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2008

    Most people are not qualified to comment on anything.

    Almost everything everyone knows is wrong.

    Most people are only intelligent enough to argue to defend their own ignorance, stupidity, insanity, with holds, false and limiting data, sins, wrong doings, harmful acts, and crimes.

  7. Nice, Marty. I like this excerpt.
    This is such an important, and elusive, thing to understand, if one is on the path of the seeker.
    You keep saying it, in many different ways. I’m not sure how many folks are hearing it, though.
    Oh well, no matter. Please post more inspiring stuff like this. I am really enjoying the food for thought you are offering. Thank you! :)

  8. Tony DePhillips

    Excellent summation.

  9. Here is another interesting quote from Urantia.

    (BTW: Urantia is the name for Earth.)

    A Thought to Ponder from The Urantia Book

    “Because of the presence in your minds of the Thought Adjuster, it is no more of a mystery for you to know the mind of God than for you to be sure of the consciousness of knowing any other mind, human or superhuman.”

    (1123.1) 102:4.1

  10. A Thought to Ponder from

    The Urantia Book

    “Never…can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.”

    (1135.7) 103:6.5

    The real truth is hidden and protected by many layers of lies, deception and traps to protect it frome swine and prostitutes.

    And for everything genuine there is a perfect counterfeit.

    Dio

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s