Part I
Preliminary Subjects
Chapter 1
Understanding the language, nature, and key terms of this treatise
Before starting to dig into the content, it is necessary to make clear the nature of my treatise in regard to two fundamental
terms : thesis and proposition.
Thesis
"The term "thesis" comes from the Greek θέσις, meaning "something put forth", and refers to an intellectual proposition. "Dissertation" comes from the Latin dissertātiō, meaning "path". Aristotle was the first philosopher to define the term thesis. A "thesis" is a supposition of some eminent philosopher that conflicts with the general opinion...for to take notice when any ordinary person expresses views contrary to men's usual opinions would be silly.
For Aristotle, a thesis would therefore be a supposition that is stated in contradiction with general opinion or express disagreement with other philosophers.
A supposition is a statement or opinion that may or may not be true depending on the evidence and/or proof that is offered. The purpose of the dissertation is thus to outline the proofs of why the author disagrees with other philosophers or the general opinion."
Stated nature of this treatise
"Though I am here to affirm a specific position, declare a thing to be more approximate in its truth value than that held by the masses of practitioners of Buddhism, I am, however, NOT here to redirect them, and/or change their path and interest. Instead, I am here to illuminate an entirely different path, if not esoteric, that is specific to a certain nature that one could be born with, and therefore, found more suitable to their identity."
-VOLT
Often, the thesis can be said to be adversarial, if not even confrontational, for there is that held by public and popular opinion, and then that of the seeming desire to alter and/or change it to something else. This can be said to be the nature of the thesis, or dissertation.
Therefore, a thesis is, by its nature, combative. It is, instead of a bullet, an arrow, or the tip of a blade, a weapon that is intellectual in nature and disposition.
Now, in regard to my use of the term thesis, or dissertation, this combative element, or that is, this desire, motive, and need to change the minds of others, alter their course, path, and sense of the subject matter IS NOT present.
I do not have the goal or the objective to reform Buddhism, change the minds of practicing Buddhists, or revolt against their ways. To oppose to a thing has some severe consequences, one of them being the mental disease of "malcontent".
"One is often tainted by that to which they oppose. To oppose is to enter in association, or to have even been forced into an association. When such an association exists, being oppositional means being reactionary. Being reactionary means being slower than the action, and being slower means, more often than not, being dictated in your moves, thoughts, and ways, by that which you opposed. That which is opposed then sets the tempo, and the opposition becomes locked in a dance with the opposed. Do not oppose and rest on reaction. Instead, come to support and build, throwing off the dance of opposition, and instead embracing action, cultivation, deliberation, and construction. One can oppose to the point of stating "this, not that", and "me, not them", as a start. However, leave quickly the relationship with that you oppose, and become for something, not existing solely as against something. When one exists in opposition habitually, they will develop the disease of malcontent. Careful of this course."
-VOLT
When starting to construct and develop a path separate from that of popular opinion, there is inevitably a time and mark of the separation, carried out with a clarity of "this, NOT that". This is so that one does not project upon the new and distinct thing the nature and identity of the old and assumed related.
What do I mean by assumed?
Any assumption made by a reader, connecting my efforts with that of others and the nature of the subject with the familiar, is entirely a fault of mine, and not theirs, until I clarify, to which I am doing with this treatise.
The fault being mine because the aesthetics, histories, symbols, stories, and terms are all drawn from a well-established religion and/or philosophy, depending on one's position of what is a religion.
I am using terms and symbols already belonging to a system. Therefore, to do this is to, in essence, come into relationship with that system. So then when others come to project their notions, assertions, and assumptions upon your work, it is only a given, and quite expected.
In law, there is this notion called prima facie, or prime face, or first face, or at face value. This notion is that when probability is on your side that a thing can be reasoned easily enough to be as you assume, you have the right and authority to go on assuming, unless a rebuttal is made.
This is a very understandable principle, as, in essence, most of mental navigation throughout life is based on this principle of mental consideration that could be called prima facie.
At face value, my work is about Buddhism, and traveling through the terms, becomes about Zen in particular, and more precisely, Niō Zen.
So then a reader/seeker who may have some dealings in subject matter under these terms will then have thoughts on them. At face value, they will measure the accuracy of my treatise and its affirmations based upon what they believe and do not believe in, what they want from Buddhism, what they do not, and most of all, what their nature is and is not. All of this is conducted at face value.
I have never met someone who studied or practiced Buddhism, and/or was learned on its matters actually having any notion of Niō.
Many in my search, too, have never heard of Vajrayana Buddhism. Now, I have been active in my research and pursuit of the Buddhism I had insight about, traveling to foreign countries connected to Buddhism, and learning of their ways. In my research and travels, I mostly came into contact with Vajrayana Buddhism, Vajrapani, and Niō, only in martial circles, such as the Shaolin temple, and that of Japan's Pure Land Buddhism.
In essence, Buddhists have no idea what I am talking about and writing about. Because of this, if the reader/seeker is a Buddhist, or interested in Buddhism as it has been rendered among the populace, and that of popular opinion, then they will be more subject to the prima facie mental holding than that of someone new entirely to the subject matter. More errors in reasoning will occur in the minds of the familiar than those unfamiliar.
When I was seeking out the substance and nature of Buddhistic thought, I often encountered practitioners and/or interested parties to be lacking in anything more than a mythical and mystical sense of Bodhi and the Buddha.
Their pride, though it was more than likely arrogance, not pride, was in that of the whole of the subject matter remaining unresolved, not solved, and ever so evasive, like most of the thinking they carried on in life.
I have not been confused about Bodhi substance, nor the characteristics and attributes that make a Buddha, a Buddha. For if there has ever been a Buddha, and if it is an actual thing baring substance and an essence, then I have that substance and essence, and I live habitually by it, recognizing my own nature, the nature of others, and my submission to Dharma. Therefore, if Buddha was a Buddha, I am a Buddha.
But to say this to a Buddhist would conjure up much of their thinking about who was and what was Buddha. How did he live, what did he promote, and what was he against? And too then, with their Sense of Life and Sense of Self will be their own projections upon the Buddha, where they see mommy and daddy in the Buddha, or they see those of their own people and what they think is the best of their kind embodied in the notion of the Buddha.
Buddha, therefore, is an icon of morality embodied. The entirety of Buddhism can be called an "ethical system", a "moral code", "teachings", "doctrine", and so on, on how and what to be as a certain kind of character, a Buddhist character.
But as an icon of morality, the seeker/practitioner can only see the Buddha so far as they can see themselves. This said, then no seeker/practitioner can ever understand and recognize a Buddha, unless they are one. It is a fact of reality, it is Dharma that one can only identify those characteristics and attributes they have themselves come to acquire, observe, analyze, codify, and recognize.
If you are depressed, then the Buddha is he who speaks words that are uplifting. If you feel like a victim and lowly, then the Buddha is he who shows compassion and acceptance. Why? Because you want to be accepted. It is not about the Buddha, it becomes about your own wants, desires, insecurities, and in essence, Sense of Self (SOS) and Sense of Life (SOL).
Prima facie, your notion at first face, is a formula of SOS/SOL combined with conditions, and your sense of language.
The Buddhist notion of "illusion" and that of "false self/no self" is this very thing. One's Sense of Self and Sense of Life can be combined hierarchically and left solely as SOL from here on out, metaphorically, one's soul.
All of what I am setting out to do has to do with this SOL aspect of observing, projecting, receiving, accepting, and/or denying things of things. Meaning, as a thesis, this is about proposition, not opinion, yet opinion rules.
Proposition
"Proposition and opinion have the same father. They are both born from being a declarative statement. However, they differ as children in their nature, in that the first requires evidence, affirmation, and/or denial, and a format that can be cross-examined. Whereas the latter, the opinion, can be based on fact and understanding, evidence and certainties, BUT, and this is a big BUT, it does not have to be, and can instead be loose formatted, whimsical, arbitrary, and nonsensical. Opinion and preference are not the same thing. An opinion will declare something of something, but not have the burden to support an argument and follow a code of reasoning. The same can be said about the two children of understanding, knowledge and belief. Proposition delivers knowledge, or tries to, and opinion is often the product of beliefs, and tries little to anything but mere expression. Knowing this about the nature of thought and expression is very important. One must come to know the differences of these things, so as to know the battleground of their own mind."
-VOLT
As a thesis, the units of information of this treatise are propositional. Too, are they subject to knowledge, not belief. Where belief is the carrier, it will be disclosed.
This is important to say, because the reader/seeker needs to be challenged to differentiate. They must ask oneself, how did you come to believe as you have, what is the foundation?
Further, in this sense, is that of knowing where you may have an opinion to be projected, you ought to hold it back, when clearly a proposition has been made that rebuts, denies, and/or makes clear the difference between the stated and proposed and that of your opinions.
A proposition is a declarative statement that is either true or false, and is set up to follow a method of testing and validating, the Reasoning process, in regard to how one came to their conclusions.
A proposition is composed of a subject, a copula, and a predicate. At a later time, I will introduce the method of Reasoning, or that of the logic of Niō Zen, called Logji.
However, at this time, this is not the primary, so it must be put on hold.
One who has no care for propositions, but a preference for opinions, no care for knowledge, but a preference for beliefs, will have found themselves in the wrong place, and most of all, in contradiction to the very notion of being awakened, for one can not dwell in opinions and beliefs and be called awakened, as such is simply being lost in the wilderness of their own minds.
"That is your opinion, they say, as they themselves have not become acquainted with that of the nature of a proposition. And so then, as they wander in the dark vast wilderness of their mind and you stand before them, they come to be of the opinion that you stand in the same darkness of ignorance as they do, practicing the same mental evasion that has them so utterly powerless in the face of a blunt and exact reality."
-VOLT
Ambiguity, symbols, allegories and metaphors : the enemies of Reason, definition, and exactness
Ambiguity, symbol, allegory, and metaphor are not precise, welldefined, and stable. And when this is the case, the masses, the commons, and any charlatan can make use of a thing for their own character and intent, and mislead, misguide, thwart, subvert, and disrupt the original intent and purpose.
I have been a guide to hundreds, over my lifetime. But unlike others who seek to rule, to lead, to teach, and control, I seek to liberate and get others to sustain their own direction. In doing this, I have never met or taught another whom if asked to represent my ways, could do so accurately. In fact, many of them, in the end, would even come to believe the opposite of what I taught, thinking it was what I taught.
This is because of the filter many use to understand the world around them, as I mentioned earlier. For this understanding, use this seed. There are two notions to keep in mind : Sense of Life, or SOL, and Sense of Self, or SOS. These two are easy to remember, the first being a word for the sun, and the same sound as soul. And the second being SOS for Save Our Souls. In one's Sense of Self is their filter of Sense of Life. A SOL is, more often than not, the product of a collective : one's society, and from it is shaped the SOS, or the Sense of Self. This is different from that which is a SOS born from the cultivation and development of a particular faculty, or power : the Rational faculty.
When I use the term Rational, with a capital R here, or Reason, with a capital R, I mean to say Ratiocination, Ratiocinative, and Ratiocinate. I will explain that later on. But the reader should be starting to notice that the way I write and explain is favoring that of precision, definition, and exactness. One could call this analytical thinking.
These SOS and SOL are a filter. When one experiences new stimuli, new events, new notions, and so on, such is ran automatically through this filter. By automatic, this means the individual is not analyzing, or discerning in this process. The filter is a passive filter that automatically categorizes, and reinterprets the data for the individual. This is if they do not have a deliberate and active method for analyzing the world and its stimuli. So then it becomes that this collective and automatic filter shapes their Sense of Self, and Sense of Life.
So when a pupil, student, and/or seeker is before me, and wishing to learn of my ways, their auto-system, or filter, must interpret what they observe to match elements of their SOS and SOL. What they end up with is not the precision of my ways, or the proper character of my ways, but instead, their own interpretation. This is, of course, if they have yet to become proficient in the disciplines of the Rational faculty. When the Rational faculty is the determining factor in their assessments, it bypasses their SOS and SOL. Instead, with the Rational faculty at the helm, their SOS and SOL are deliberately developed, inductive, and innovated, and when used, are reserved for value judgments. This subject too is not for now, but a later time. But to introduce these notions is necessary to make clear my point.
One can call this securing the route, or making strong the argument or one's case. In academic ways, there is much assumption that the reader is of the same education and set of notions. As I am not an academic, and as I have not been educated, I neither do this or care for this way. Academics are often preaching to a conformed audience and simply sustaining the same cycle of cultural indoctrination and reinforcement. If the reader is having a hard time with my practice of writing and communication, they need to look to this matter. For if seeking that I be conformed to the academics and educated standard, one will be disappointed, as I often and steadily betray such ways.
I am not about conformed thought, which is no more than a prison of culture and institutions. I am for striking interest and analytical thought; thought that requires vitality, as well as valour to implement. So then if one finds such an adventure "too much" and not suitable to their education, they should turn away and delight in the many books your kind has published on all sorts of matters. You will never be without your own kind to turn to. They have established themselves well, as your mental jailers.
I am, by all means, the villain in this here story of your life, not the hero or the guardian.
Back on track. Ambiguity becomes the enemy of Reason and definition, exactness, and that of the Rational faculty. The Rational faculty demands an eventual departure from metaphor, allegory, and ambiguous symbols. However, what can be called knowledge is that most minds have to begin here with example for understanding, in this primal state. Context has primacy. This is the natural starting point; to Reason is not natural, and it requires active consideration and organization. And therefore, the thinker evolves to definition, categorical thinking, hierarchies of understanding, and not examples as definition, but instead, the mighty mind's way of conceiving of attributes and characteristics as their own notions and things, entities of the mind.
These mind entities, attributes, and characteristics are the key to exact thinking, and the evolution of the mind to consider complex matters of great importance. Without this evolution, you, the reader, will be trapped into that of needing to filter all I say back to what you already know and believe, and transform it in order to think of it. This is a mistake to do, and one must guard themselves against this. Schools teach this practice of translating and conforming the works of others into your own notions. This is bad thinking, irrational, as well as a poison to the very essence of what is communication.
In proper communication, both parties are seeking to come to a common ground, not seeking to interpret the other based on common assumption and familiarity. To attain this common ground, both minds must be elevated into the realm of Reason.
In all things among human thought, there is no other faculty that brings humans of diverse backgrounds and ideologies into a common understanding and respect. The Rational faculty is the king of this. It was the faculty that brought Roger the Second of Palermo to have in his court Muslim scientists, Christian scientists, Jewish scientists, and he, of Norman descent, holding the hidden belief in the druidic and Pythagorean notions. Science, or the sense of Reasoned knowledge, united them into a system of kinship, as mathematics and the sciences of today can bring a human in China into the same notions as a human in America.
This is made possible because the Rational faculty is not about translating into familiarity the foreign notions one encounters. Instead, it is about learning and understanding the definitions. And when this is done, and both approach with the same methodology, they discover universal and exact notions. This can not be stressed more.
Chapter 2
Liberating the notion of "Bodhi" from Buddhism
"To awaken implies one is asleep, of course in the metaphorical sense.
Both imply there is something to be observed; but is not.
To be heard; but is not.
To be understood; but is not.
To be acted upon; but is not.
Rarely ever truly asked and answered is what is one supposed to be awakened to.
Answer : The nature or the essence of one's being, and then further more, the innate dispositions and inclinations in one, born from this being, living through it. Then the action is in coming into accord with that very being, and not contradicting it. Finding its most excellent way of being, based on what you are, not what you wish to be. One who is awakened to this and acting in accord is called awakened. However, this task is quite difficult, especially when the animal aspect of humans gets in the way of the mind's eyes to conceive and command...”
-VOLT
This chapter can be seen as a taste or an introduction into what is to come later. All throughout this process of seeking to explain in technical terms the particulars and differences of this kind of Zen to which I have taken the helm in bringing forth, I had a thing that kept coming back before me and to my mind : the monopoly that Buddhism seems to have on that of the notion of Bodhi.
I did not see that there was a way to truly introduce Niō Zen without having to take on this monopoly held by Buddhism. In fact, by bringing about Niō Zen as a system, it will be directly connected to Buddhism in the minds of others with a familiarity with the term Zen, because this term has been monopolized as well by Buddhism.
Niō Zen is a standalone system that is not Buddhism. It is Niō Zen. However, in Niō Zen, there are the core concepts of Buddhism, but not as they have been rendered and explained by the followers, practitioners, and admirers of Buddhism.
If the historical Buddha, or any Buddha, for that matter, was indeed awakened, and this term is to mean to his own nature, and then the nature of reality, then his awakening has to be in regard to the ontological, epistemological, logical, ethical, and the extended beyond : truths, or at least approximations to the truth. These truths would need to be demonstrable through a process of Reasoning that can be correlated to observable phenomenon, and/or, in extension, the Reasoning that is induced or deduced therefrom.
If this is not the case, then the Buddha was not awakened, but was simply inspired to guide others and to create a community, and would set out to do so by any means, be them factual, arbitrary and whimsical, or through some insight.
So I ask that the reader first resolve this matter on what they think and/or believe on this matter.
1. Buddha was awakened to the objective sense of his nature, and then the objective sense of reality, therefore, gaining access to an understanding available to others.
Or
2. Buddha was engaging his own mind, and perhaps a supernatural sense that others can not access, and therefore, is the sole carrier of these notions, and they begin and end in him.
Or
3. Buddha was simply inspired to end the suffering of others, and would set out to do it by any means necessary, be them in accordance with wisdom, facts, and knowledge, or by belief, opinion, whim, and that of the arbitrary. His inspiration was the main factor, his personality the main factor, and not that of the validity of his teachings.
If the reader does not first resolve this matter, then their sense of my work will be shaped by this aspect, knowingly or unknowingly.
I am under the impression of the first, when it comes to Buddhahood and Buddha nature, and that of looking into one's own nature. I hold it to be known, not believed, that we all have that of the innate nature of being human, but we do not all have the same innate dispositions and set of inclinations, which are a product of what kind of human we are.
If the reader is not of the first category of thought on the Buddha, but instead they believe the Buddha was of a supernatural insight, and/or simply inspired to end the suffering of others, and therefore, set out to do so by any means, valid or invalid, then you will not grasp nor care for my work. If you seek out my work when falling under those two latter sense, then the motive you will have will either be simple curiosity, or that of seeking to subvert and aim your malcontent at me.
Only from the first category can one come to conclude that Bodhi, karuna, and duhkha are concepts, are notions, are possible truths that can be investigated and developed in sense, outside of Buddhism and Eastern mysticism in general.
This then is the first step in considering if this route of consideration is for you, or not.
Affirmation; Buddhism is not the product of a Buddha.
The Buddha, or Sakyamuni, did not have the same nature as his followers, which has been displayed in his insight. Only one of the same nature can identify their kin, and therefore, the right and wrong representation of their kind.
My disagreement with Buddhism is not a disagreement with Sakyamuni, as I believe him to have been akin to my own nature. This belief is only called a belief on the level of being able to prove it, and the time and energy it takes to do so. In actuality, I know his nature is kin to my own. But such an affirmation can call up a demand from others of proof. However, herein awaits the error of a nature that is not kin, trying to recognize a nature "alien" and foreign to their own.
When the masses have the monopoly on characterizing the Buddha and all his insight, he will be closer to them than he was to himself. This is the nature of human thought. Yet not one of them comes to embody the power and Bodhi of the one they claim to understand. They, the masses who have his character hostage, do not measure up beyond that of the most common of thinkers, and more so, the most common of characters. They do not amount to being Buddhas, or that of awakened beings.
How can this be considered Rational, or valid, that an inferior thing has the monopoly on a thing considered quite great, unique, and amazing?
Only by those trapped in a mental sickness can this error of reasoning be so fortified. In fact, it takes one to know one. And this has been the nature of Ratiocination, and Ratiocination only, throughout all Reasoned history.
What I mean is this : if the Buddha was a Buddha, therefore, awakened and of the highest caliber of thought and character in regard to reality, then he had to embody a specific essence that had a universality to it. He would have perhaps called this essence Dharma, the divine order, the divine Law, and the "absolute" in being, in whole. However, this Dharma can not be truly defined, as it is not subject to discernment, where one can say "this, not that", or "is", and "is not", because the Dharma is the whole. The human mind does not conceive of the wholeness of a thing. This becomes a kind of thought that is immersed in the nature of the thing, operating from it, but not thinking upon it. Names and descriptions are the product of discernment. So therefore, when one seeks to explain a thing that can not be discerned to those who have not come to "know" the wholeness of the thing, and operate from it, then such use of language is wasted and useless.
The result is that followers and believers will show their tribal relationship by talking about, and trying to reason on those proclamations of non-discernment. "Empty" becomes "phenomenon", and what "is" becomes what "is not". Because in all aspects of this thinking, the wholeness of Dharma is that of all things being all things, and possessing no element of being void of the other. This is nonsense to those having not joined the mindstream at least once in their journey while in form.
To use discerning speech on matters of the mindstream would mean an ignorance to the conditions of others, and their proximity to this phenomenon, if it can be called one. That the Buddhists picked up language and beliefs on these matters are clear, and that many of them would then focus the discerning mind on it, even clearer. But they used the wrong mind, and therefore, concluded invalid things.
The Buddha used the right mind, but he did not use the discerning mind to understand that those who would follow had not discovered for themselves the mindstream. OR he knew this, and taught them the truth about their limitations, and they ignored him, and in their very human way began the process of misdirection and deception, masquerading as Buddha-like, or Buddha seeking.
You see, when one has not the genuine experience of a profound thing, and comes to fake it, they, by necessity of mind and their inept character, come to believe that too, all others have come to fake it, and that such profound states of awareness are not authentic. And so long as they are not authentic, and all have come to deceive on the matter, their deception, then, is no deception at all. Over time, these deceiving and misdirecting characters of ineptitude will reduce the profound and hard to attain to no more than a simple aspect of life.
This is why the masses of Buddhists and their admirers focus on the primal sense of compassion as a primary Buddhist characteristic, and there is no awakened wrath to be found in any Buddhist or their admirers.
This awakened wrath is not simply a missing ingredient. It is the primary ingredient of Buddhahood. This is why Vajrapani was called the "All Power" of the Buddha. The other two were called the Wisdom, and the Compassion, though compassion is a foolish term to associate with the Buddha, and I will explain these terms further.
No Buddha and no Buddhist can have a monopoly on translating these terms, simply because they call themselves a follower of the Buddha. If the Buddha was indeed a Buddha, he had to be using a system, a method of analysis, and therefore, Reasoning, that brought him to his conclusions, which can be measured to have been valid and sound, or invalid and unsound.
This essence of the Dharma is called Ratiocination. It is the variable of the Dharma that begins the discerning and analytical mind. And the discerning and analytical mind is primary and necessary for any discovery and proximity to the mindstream. Exercising and habituating Ratiocination builds the metaphorical vessel to ride, like a boat, the metaphorical sense of the mindstream, sometimes called "the winning stream".
I was born with this essence being hardwired into my own being. I believe this has been true for other Manu beings, all throughout history, and that Sakyamuni has explained this, and made this clear to be his character and his essence, and the cause for his insight.
The Ratiocinative essence is key to awareness and awakenedness, and it is a matter of potency and degree as it sits at the core of humans, and/or Maan.
Sakyamuni, the Buddha, like that of Balinus (or Appolonius of Tyana), has this essence. I add this fella Appolonius of Tyana to the mix to make a thing clear : this essence is innate, and with the limited sense of the nature of others, due to the limited data able to be called upon in the past by these Maan, they may not have known by fact, but assumed that their natures were different. The desire from the virtuous that all should benefit by being virtuous is so high, that it makes one proceed as if all humans and Maan were to be treated as having the same potential, though they do not.
The Buddha, unlike Appolonius, or that of Balinus, moved out to gather the many and teach them the Dharma. 2,500 years later, the Dharma does not exist in their fold, their minds, and most certainly not in their character. Therefore, his system was not akin to the nature of those who would become his followers, and representatives and protectors of his system.
Either this is the case, or he, the Buddha, was wrong. It has to be either or. If a reader believes I am wrong, and that Buddhists and their admirers do in fact embody Bodhi and spread it, then I ask this : are you awakened?
I am!
Therefore, I can measure what this means, discern, and better yet, know its difference from the mindstream, and its essence and nature, and speak on it, write on it, teach it, and display it in all that I am.
Can you?
This is a question about perspective and access. At what point and time of condition does the reader, thinker, Buddhist, and/or admirer stop misdirecting, deceiving, and being so delusional that they come to realize they lack all necessary elements to measure the entirety of all things Buddha, and Bodhi?
If you do not embody it, you have not attained it, and if you have not attained it, you can not accurately think on it, speak on it, judge it, measure it, nor propagate it.
Take this simple notion. When learning about Buddhism and the Buddha, one will first learn of the Buddha's primary virtues, often mistakenly numbered two : they say wisdom and compassion.
If I was then to ask any Buddhist or admirer of Buddhism to speak on these two terms, and life's lessons and revelations on these matters, how many could do so, and do so with awakenedness, or that is Bodhi, as the filtered means and way, versus that of some simple child's thoughts about wisdom and compassion?
Now, I have done this, in the works of my life. I am an investigative and experimental behavioral philosopher, which was my professional cover to make money and live as a natural philosopher and Sage.
But in that profession, I have gathered data, reviewed data, experimented, and investigated human thought, character, behavior, Sense of Self, and Sense of Life—all guided by an insight innate to me that always gave me a winning advantage.
So look at the simplicity of the question. Write on and explain wisdom, and that of compassion.
The truth is most can not, be them Buddhists or admirers of Buddhism. They can say mamma said, or daddy said, or Buddha said this about wisdom and compassion. And then when asked to speak on the matter "off book" and to analyze, they can not, you could not.
Why?
Because this is "big Buddhism", or that of the conclusions of Buddhism. What this means is you get the whole of the Buddha's conclusions and so called characteristics thrown at you right away.
It is like if I said to you, there were a thousand dimensions to reality, and then I described all the dimensions, and then I gave all my conclusions about what it means about this one, and then way at the end, I tell you what critical elements there were for you to conceive of these thousand dimensions, but I got so tired by then, I left you having to trust me instead, because you do not have the route paved to get there yourself.
My example, if it is silly to you as the reader, then you should think Buddhism is silly, because that's what Buddhist cosmology does. It tells about Heavens, hell, Bodhisattvas, and Dharmapalas, and so on, but not about your everyday human life. And those monks and Buddhist thinkers who make money running Buddhist centers to sustain their costumed existence will then try to tell you how it applies to your life, but they are often as lost as you are.
Savior religions begin by telling you there is a problem, and then that they will seek to save you from that problem.
Life is suffering, all life, and this is how you stop the suffering, but in many ways you will not know this time around, you will have to wait till you are reborn again to see if you solved the puzzle. Buddhism in a nutshell.
The end result of this, in Buddhists and admirers, becomes so : suffering is life, I suffer, as do others. I must master compassion, or I must feel for others who suffer, and try to alleviate or not contribute to that suffering. This results in a docile, timid, broken, and weak disposition, not one of virtue.
Wisdom, for humans, is a difficult matter. It requires knowledge and understanding, but neither of these can be attained without power and ability. In Buddhism, you are told about wisdom, and you are left with only compassion. They do not tell you about the "All Power" of Buddha as it is symbolized by Vajrapani, and marks analytical thought, power, potency, ability, proficiency, and its energy of transmission and acceleration, wrath.
So when you are busy feeling sorry for others, feeling sorry for yourself, and acting on these feelings while not being proficient at strategies and tactics of living and cooperating, then you are left in one state, that of being in a sorry state—that is to say, a pathetic, impotent, meek, timid, isolated, fearful, insecure, full of doubt, and in essence, inept state.
How do hurt children come to think they understand karuna, as they call it compassion?
The answer is that those children, which is what most of humans are no matter their age, are hurt themselves. Because they feel suffering, they want others to feel for, and with them. And in order to make this happen, they put out a signal that says "I feel for you and with you, please reciprocate".
Among these hurt children, none is to be seen as free of suffering or displeasure, because after all, only the Buddha or a Buddha is free of such. So then there are none who will come to free these children from their feelings, but instead, they all huddle together, using misdirection and deception, masquerading as Buddhists and admirers, so that they can sustain a tribal access to emotional burden transfer and sharing.
In order to have continued access to others, the children of suffering will socially adopt the same culture, the same language and Sense of Life, so that they may continue to be accepted and have access to the "burden transfer units" of their system.
The definition and expectation of friendship, in most common vernacular, should shed light on this. A friend is one who is "there when you need them", is "there to hear your problems, and help you", is "there for a shoulder to cry on", and so on. A friend is not one who is virtuous and expects you to be virtuous, tells you to stop your moaning and pity party, and lift up, elevate, and conquer... Yet that is Buddha.
Buddha would not have sat there and listen to all the Buddhists and admirers "emote" about their lives. Instead, he would say your mind is being centered on an illusion; this thing you feel sorry for and about, it is not real.
But he would have said this to the masses of humans, and he would have been wrong. For humans, it is real. It is a chemical self that holds the mind as a slave. The mind can fight it, but it won't win, because it was not meant to. Humans are meant to be primal, and this is their primal system reporting to them the error of domestication. They suffer, because domestication is contrary to their nature.
However, Maan, or Manu, suffers far less when they are able to be free of the chemical, that is, the emotional self, and activate the mind.
Telling a Maan, or Manu, to suck it up, and shut down that false sense coming by way of feeling, and instead engage principle, makes sense to his nature. But Maan, or Manu, is rare. Buddhists are not Manu, or Maan; they are humans.
Humans will be emotionally broken when their urges are not fed the right signal. The right signal for the urges of humans is determined by primal and emergency based conditions. Where humans receive comfort and a disconnection from survival, they turn on themselves and each others.
Humans will use Buddhism as a predator. They will use it to gain access to others, so that they can act as an "Emotional Burden Transfer Unit", or EBTU.
They will smile, act pleasant, and use the child seductive strategy of playing innocence, or that is, natural childlike.
This is why Buddhists, if you know any, act pleasant, and carry on as if they have no concerns or worries, but then when you get to know them, you come to realize they are basket cases, neurotic, deceptive, and emotionally confused and distraught.
If one was to show wrath before them, wisdom, knowledge, and analyses, they would come to use the compassion strategy as a means to disarm. Compassion is not karuna. Any monk who has come to say otherwise is no more than a subversive who has given Buddhism his neurotic, soft, and effeminate nature.
Buddha was no effeminate; yet in the East, this is how he looks in statues, other than that of Niō and Vajrapani.
Most of what is Buddhist thought has been shaped by the masses of Buddhists to match their innate dispositions, which are, more often than not, effeminate. This is not negative, nor a slander, but simply an observation. A system and its character will be of use to some and of no use to others, whose character it does not match.
A character that is not effeminate, but rather masculine, aggressive, vigilant, and in accord with the Warrior Way, would often find their kind not wanted, nor embraced. Yet the Buddha, as a so called historical figure, was characterized not as an effeminate, but as the ultimate masculine male. He was seen as the cross between the two realms of a Brahman (priest) and a Warrior.
Though he did not support the taking up of arms, and instead put forth an ideology looking to end conflict, he did not do so as a pacifist, as he has been modeled to appear as. He did so as a Warrior who had the mission of self-mastery and self-subjugation, not the subjugation of others. He did this with a Warrior's mind, vitality, and strategy.
A primary element of early Buddhism was that of world renouncing, where one would give up the comforts of domestic living, its values and its ways, and instead take to voluntary homelessness, or that of the ascetic living.
His earlier followers were all males. And they were considered to be powerful, strong, highly attractive, and excellent examples of masculinity, as the Indians had conceived of such.
However, when Buddhism became popular, it began to attract those not inclined to potency, to that of power and inner strength, but instead, many who had the ills of domestication well imprinted upon their character. This was well-known, and it gave rise to all the rules that would become pushed upon new ordinations. The masses who came after the "strong men" would eventually be those left over to give to Buddhism a new character : one modeled off of the Hinduism and mass Indian culture, and one able for the common male and female to adopt with little strain upon their character, or that is, little demand of might and potency.
Buddhism then became a vessel for the insincere looking to be measured Sagelike, holy, "enlightened", and so on. This has made Buddhism today, and perhaps for most of its campaign, not the product of a Buddha, but instead, the product of those masses nowhere near the potency of early Buddhists and that of the Buddha himself. The face, the character of Buddhism is modeled off of those masses, not the Buddha.
Therefore, Buddhism, as it is accessible today, has an effeminate nature to it. This was warned against by the Buddha, and early Buddhists, and they believed this would be the future of Buddhism, as they saw it gaining popularity. However, none dare to bring light to this.
My intention is to pave the way for others of an awakened wrathful inclination to partake in the esoteric sciences and arts, hidden in Vajrayana, yet universal to all of those who would be, or had been Warrior-Sages. Appolonius, or that of Balinus, embodies this far more than the emasculated Buddha of effeminate Buddhists.
How Buddhism is used by Buddhists today and in the past is rather nothing like how I shall proceed; one can even argue, quite opposite in their natures and relations. Yet Buddhistic is how I am terming this endeavor, and I continue.
First, I must first attempt to liberate the notions and terms held hostage by Buddhism and its millions of followers.
"Bodhi is the root of Buddhism, and that of a Buddha. But though Buddhism is a species of philosophy, Bodhi and Buddhahood are not limited to that species, but are a core mystery needing to be resolved via a sound methodology. I do not know if I have discovered that methodology yet for others, as I have had no need of it for myself. Yet I work at this discovery, and I am ready for some testing.”
-VOLT
In Buddhism, there is an identity crisis.
On one hand, Buddhism is a system that promotes the ending, or reduction in cravings, emotions, passions, wants, and attachments, so as to come to the Dharma through that of awakening to one's own nature, and the nature of reality.
On the other hand, it is a system with a compassionate, pacifist, emotionally blissful Buddha who is the savior of the emotional masses of humans, in that he will guide them to see their emotions as noble and virtuous.
Why would I say this latter?
As an experimental and investigative behavioral philosopher, I became so not through academics, as I have no role in academics, nor as a mere profession, but came to such a thing out of interest, because I took serious this "looking into one's own nature" and that of the nature of reality.
Words are not where the truth and sincerity of an individual's character rest. They are in their actions. And the breed of behavioral philosophy to which I advance focuses on combining the science with that of the philosophy of mind, values, justice, and war. It is not so much behaviorism that I care for, but it is instead that of a specific kind of profiling that not only grants me access to my own nature, but to that of the nature of others, in understanding.
And as I have looked into the nature of others, I have observed greatly those adopting Buddhism, and I have come to conclude that they have not merely adopted it, but they have cooped it.
If the Buddha was awakened to that of his own nature and to the nature of reality, then does this imply he was awakened to the nature of those who were not like him?
This question is important.
Buddhism has at its core this claim that Buddha nature is in everyone. Yet with 520 million Buddhists and billions having lived, how many Buddhas became actualized?
Too, an important question.
Is Bodhi/awakened a supernatural state of awareness, or is it a matter of science, or that of knowledge through observation, investigation, experimentation, repetition, and replication of conditions?
This needs to be resolved by the reader.
IF Bodhi is supernatural insight, THEN one would need to be supernatural to have it.
IF Bodhi is via sciences, THEN its variables are subject to discovery and application.
In the first case, if the Buddha has supernatural insight, then why would he claim others can acquire the same? If in the latter, it would make sense in that there were sciences to the acquisition and measurement of Bodhi.
What, then, is Bodhi?
When one seeks out the answer to this question, there is no exact one provided by Buddhism. It is as if to answer this question, one would need to understand the whole of Buddhism, its aims, and its conclusions, and then there you have Bodhi understood.
Why?
Because the term by itself means "to awaken", or that of "awakened". It does not and never has meant "enlightened", and with this term "enlightened" comes the supernatural sense Bodhi has come to project. The term is not supposed to be a standalone, such as simply "Bodhi" means "to awaken".
Buddhism answers the question by declaring the aim towards Buddhist aims. The Buddhist aim is to become awakened to one's own nature/identity, then its expression towards the virtues, and then awakened to that of the true nature/identity of reality and the "great Law of Accord" with it, which is called the Dharma. When one has taken this mental route and attitude, they are said to be a Buddha, and Buddha has at its root the term Bodhi.
Therefore, Buddha can be said to mean :
"One who has come to discover and be in accord with their own nature/identity, arriving at virtue, and then that of accordance with the nature/identity of reality, Lawful, and Sovereign."
-VOLT
Study the parts to understand the whole : the 3 Bodhisattvas and greatest Buddha's virtues
It must be stated before I go further, that what can be called Buddhistic virtues is not settled upon yet, by this writer. That is to say, Buddhism will have things they call virtues, but I am insitigating an investigation into if they are so, on the grounds of Bodhi, or simply, the culture of the Buddhists.
For example, is altruism a virtue, or a vice?
The answer is actually based on the being and its nature, doing the value judgement. This is to say, human virtues will not be the same as Manu and Ratient virtues. I now proceed.
Buddhist iconography uses Bodhisattvas to represent the individual characteristics of the Buddha. What this means is you start with the Buddha, then you need to study his attributes or traits in isolation. This is to say, study the parts, and master the parts to master the whole.
In esoteric Buddhism, this practice is still known; however, few in esoteric Buddhism understand why and apply it as it was intended.
When the term ''manifest'' is used, in regard to characters and traits, it is important to know that these are all the Buddha, no matter the name used. The character name is like a genus in a taxon, in the sense of categorical relations from general form to specific form.
Buddha is the most general form in the taxon, and then manifestations in Bodhisattvas are the species, and among them other related characteristics. So for example :
1. Vajrapani protects the Buddha, and manifests all the Buddha's "power", as well as the "power" of all the tathāgatas.
2. Manjusri manifests all the Buddha's "wisdom".
3. Avalokitesvara manifests all of the Buddha's immense "compassion".
These are three general paths of the virtues of the Buddha, and if it is accurate, that of "a Buddha".
Virtue is supposed to be that state of most excellence in one's character and expression, which must be based upon the nature of the being.
The first two Bodhisattvas are all matters of mind, knowledge, insight, and strength, and the third, compassion, is all a matter of "feeling" and "empathy". This third variable, translated as compassion, is an evil invader of the mediocre, inept human thinking, and is not a characteristic or attribute of the Buddha.
Power, Wisdom, and Karuna : the misconceptions of Buddhism as adopted by the masses
This third aspect, that of Avalokitesvara, is interesting in the name etymology, when compared to the poor translation of what character trait it is meant to represent.
Implied in this name is that of the great Sovereign who looks down upon the world. Only "down" and "Sovereign" are a part of the name, but culturally it is known that the term "world", loka, is implied in the expression. This trait requires that of a trait of being Sovereign, and this is key when understanding this sense of compassion. Does compassion require a Sovereign?
This name was translated often to imply that of being concerned with the sounds of those seeking "help", or to become "more". Listening to the sounds of the world and for those within it, in their cries to rise.
The term being translated into compassion is that of karuna, and it is being translated as compassion, because it is defined as the great desire to alleviate in others "duhkha".
However, duhkha has been poorly translated into English, often as "suffering", but it is far from that. Duhkha has the general sense of being hardship, adversity, struggle, displeasure, dissatisfaction, not getting what you want, and simple course of being born, aging, and dying. It can not mean one of these things, it is that state that is inherent to life, in that life is a struggle, set of conflicts, obstacles, and ways about itself, often not fulfilling one's wants—wants that cause them harm when they are founded on delusions, and not knowing one's own nature and the nature of reality. This is duhkha.
Therefore, to arrive at compassion with karuna is actually absurd. Compassion is co-sharing on the passions, or the emotions, and in this case the suffering, with common vernacular supposing a desire to alleviate it. Compassion does not require one side to be greater and more powerful than the other, and it is practically pity. Karuna is not compassion.
Karuna is that of having attained power in one's self, virtue, control, discipline, and status of the intrinsic nature, and coming to have benefited from this, and reduce duhkha. One then wishes to see in all others the same attainment, that of them coming to know their own nature, and the nature of reality, so that in becoming in accord, duhkha is reduced. Karuna is the overwhelming desire or devotion to alleviate and remove potency of duhkha in the lives of others.
This is karuna, and it requires a Sovereign on one end, doing the wishing and the desiring of others to rise to the same self-command and self-rulership.
Notice here, I did not translate the two terms in question. If I do not translate them, the expression is not about emotions. The expression is about states of mind and being that are considered problematic and escapable. When duhkha becomes "suffering", you now have an emotional expression, not an analytical one. Suffering is not a mental state, it is an emotional burden and feeling state.
Therefore, karuna, as the third virtue, is not compassion : it is a virtuous one seeking for others to attain to virtue. Such virtue is attained, and by it, and it alone, is duhkha reduced and/or alleviated.
I am strong and free; therefore, I wish for you to be strong and free. I have removed delusions and mental incorrectness, and therefore, have sound mind and health, and wish the same upon you, and will add to the matter of evolving you here. These are the natural elements of karuna, because they are grounded on universal realizations.
Compassion, a human female social strategy
In today's conditions of understanding human behavior and chemical connections to emotions, understanding can be acquired which was previously impossible to be awakened to.
What can now be awakened to—this is Bodhi, by the way—is that when one exhibits compassion, they are engaging in a social strategy that has to do with social mobility, hierarchy, and social roles. So then when you see one "compassionate" and listening to the suffering of another, all they are doing, in science, is the primal reflex of mirroring behavior. All empathy is this, and yet because humans, the masses, all do this too much, they can not see the simplicity in it.
Empathy is about mirror neurons, and is a factor of social survival, kinship, bonding, and therefore, social mobility and alliances. In essence, empathy, which does not exist, is social gaming. This is why when you take it a little further, there is some more Bodhi to be had : that of the behavior of human males versus human females. If a human female is suffering, and a human male then pretends, as he must, to be empathetic to her state, the human male then also activates innately in himself his servile nature to try to find alleviation and/or solution. In essence, here comes the aspect of seeking to alleviate and fix the problem. However, and this is common knowledge in behaviorism, the human female is not looking for alleviation and solution, but is instead seeking only expression : to be accepted, listened to, and nursed back by way of the chemicals of euphoria that are triggered in crying and "getting things off your chest". So in behaviorism, it is seen that human males fail to respond accordingly, because they offer solutions. For the human females, it is not about alleviation or solution, but it is about co-suffering.
The female human is saying, "join in my suffering and ally, not solve and end it". Other human females know this, and then create roles where they invite the expression of suffering from other human females, so that they develop a social role of being the "shoulder to cry on". They then avoid solution propagation, and each "suffer-vent" becomes isolated and singular, and often repeated throughout the relationships.
Now, as human males live under the dominance of domestication, which is modeled off of human female interest, the human males are doing the same thing, only far behind in awareness about this.
So you see, to be awakened to this, to have Bodhi here is a modern advantage in knowing that if there was a Buddha bringing forth such notion of karuna, he, even in his time's condition, would have known that the human female social strategy was not one that males did, or knew to do.
What am I saying?
Human males were the prime focus of Buddhism, by the Buddha, with a respect for human females stressed, and an inclusion of them later. Therefore, the human female social strategy was not present in his life or the life of his followers, as in older times, males and females of human sort were not in the same space as often as they are now.
A male social strategy is different from a female one, and Buddhism was a male system, not a system for both, which is not possible. The characteristics of a female human and male human are not the same, and neither are their innate interest.
For example, female human interest is innately considered to be "unconditional" love and care for the young; whereas male human interest has males placing upon other males expectations, tests and measurement, and conditions. Male admiration, love, and care are not innately unconditional, and this is an established difference in understanding between the male and female humans.
Now, if a female is reading this and saying I am not unconditional, but I have expectations, then perhaps you are not, as I have been saying, human. There is another thing you can be, and I will get there later. But "all" human females use unconditional love as a social strategy. Whilst "all" human males levy expectations and conditions for their affection.
Now, when testosterone is reduced in human males, as it is right now in alarming ways, the human male will become more feminized, and take on characteristics like a human female. And when a human female has more testosterone, there can be the reverse effect.
But the point is, this is a clear and well-understood difference between healthy human males and healthy human females. When they are as they were meant to be, these differences are there.
When you take all this into an awakened position, you can see then that Buddha, an Indian Man, supposed, was teaching other Indian men, that is to say, human males. Buddha was not likely himself a human male—more on that later. But he was most certainly teaching human males.
If he had taught them to employ female human social strategies, they would have ignored him, as their Indian culture was not ignorant to this.
This writer is aware that the Sakyamuni was not actually Indian, in the general sense, but was likely Saka, and from a Warrior breed distinct from the Vedic folk. Also, that too, his early followers were from the Warrior class of Sakya, and not Vedic. But this matter must be saved for the Historical Sketch written to be published soon. Therefore, for the sake of this treatise, I will generalize the condition of the Sakyamuni as "Indian".
NOTE:
If they had not ignored him, you would have seen some clear signs of the mark of a revolution in being male, to becoming female. Because all the males would have seen it this way, that they were supposed to become now empathetic and mirror weak and showing emotional behavior, and be there for the suffering of others.
This would be an absurd assertion for a system that clearly states that the passions, cravings, and emotions are the cause of the delusions, and the delusions the cause of the displeasure and mental hardship.
At the core of Buddhism, a contradiction forms if one is meant to take the translations as accurate, to which they are not.
Karuna can not be compassion, because when you are awakened, that is, when you have a valid Reasoning on the social phenomenon of compassion, it becomes valued not as an awakened characteristic, but a close enemy to the awakened characteristic of karuna. It is even made clear in Buddhism : this close enemy, they call it pity, but they should call it compassion.
Compassion, in Niō Zen, is a primal social strategy that instigates and maintains the vicious cycle of human suffering. It is not a virtue; it is a vice.
So then what is karuna, if not compassion?
As I have said before, the clue is in the fact that Buddha was male, and by the account of the stories, he was not average and mediocre, but held to be brighter, smarter, more athletic, braver, and healthier than all the males brought to compete with him when his potency of character was in question, for the story of the marriage. This, before he became the Buddha, and was simply Siddhartha.
Human males have a servile nature. When they acquire a family, they serve the female's interest and her offspring. Siddhartha is said to not have had a hard time walking away from all of this, but was stated in essence to be compelled to by his nature. Therefore, Siddhartha was not innately a human male. Siddhartha was not innately with the proclivity to be servile and serve female interest.
Siddhartha, when he was Buddha, in one conversation stated,
“Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the voices that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the caresses that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.”
-Thee Buddha
He said "enslave". This means "make a slave". So do not see yourself as a follower of Buddha, and then think me a misogynist when I speak of female interest versus male interest.
I do not think highly of humans in any area, neither the males, nor the females. To me, humans are bonobos and troglodytes who are confused with the advent of symbolic thought.
My favor is with another kind of being, a Manu, and I favor female Manu more often than I do male Manu, and find they self-realize at a higher rate and potency than the male Manu do.
I am talking about humans, not Manu, and will get there later. But if you call yourself a Buddhist, then you better resolve this matter of Buddha saying that nothing enslaves a man more than a woman. Nothing, he said.
Of course, one can see that technically, he did not say a woman enslaves, but instead, her presence does. This means it is not a matter of intent or action on the woman's part. It is nature that has made human males weak and stupid in the presence of females.
So I think he was wrong. Female humans do not enslave male humans. Nature made male humans servile to female interest, and the interest of offspring. So then in this matter, who is more awakened? The Buddha who declared that nothing enslaves a man more than a woman, or I, who understand nature is the source of the servile nature of male humans, not females? Female humans are simply then natured to be their masters, and to place the interest of their offspring and themselves above that of the male humans who serve them. This is natural order, and it is potently present.
Male humans, as I have said, do not have unconditional love. Instead, they levy expectations, measure and compare, when it comes to other males, and fail when it comes to females. Therefore, karuna, being madly considered a female human characteristic, is modeled off of what Indian males would have considered a virtue, and it is quite simple. Karuna, once again, is a desire from a position of power and personal achievement and realization. And once having seen the greatness in benefit of this, it is the overwhelming and philanthropic desire to see in others a relief from their delusions, their suffering, their displeasure, their malcontent, and their cravings, so that when they have been liberated up and out of this, they can attain to the same beneficial virtues that you so enjoy.
The key difference here is the ending of the delusions, the cravings, and the malcontent, so that something else can happen : that of virtue.
This should now be clear to the reader. It is massively different than that of compassion and the mommy Buddha.
But here is the problem. Those who seek out Buddhism do not come to it already with virtue, with wisdom, and with power.
This is chronological. Karuna is after wisdom, and wisdom is after power. How can we know this is true?
Karuna is the desire to see others be free to attain the virtue you have attained and know to be valuable.
How did you attain to such virtue?
Well, through that of developing and cultivating wisdom.
What is wisdom?
Wisdom is that of valid Reasoning upon the observable and knowable, coming to know and understand the origin and nature of things, and to have the courage and/or devotion to act in accordance with said knowledge, even if opposed and/or barred from doing so by that which is not wise.
There is no wisdom without power, because there is no power greater than analytical thought and the valid Reasoning born from it, and then the knowledge that ensues after the engagement of that power of Reasoning, and the courage that ensues after the power of devotion, certainty, resolve, devotion, and commitment to act on that which is valid, and not merely conditional.
Power is that of ability (or faculty), and more so proficient ability, skilled and precise. And the analytical faculty as personified in Vajrapani is called the Buddha's greatest empowerment.
As the reader should now see, in my breakdown, each virtue has a place in a hierarchy. It needs the other for it to be realized and expressed :
Power of identifying the origin and nature of the manifested (ontology); power of disciplining and testing one's knowledge (epistemology); power of valid Reasoning (logic); power in perseverance, vitality, and endurance in the face of adversity to do what is valid and valuable (ethics).
I will deviate slightly to state, being of the Sakya, young Siddhartha would have begun logic and intellectual training at four years old, and then his martial training at six years old. Siddhartha was highly learnt in philosophical disciplines.
Behind each discipline of thought is a power that must fuel it. No power is sustained and furthered without freedom to do so. Ultimate power is realized in attaining pure Sovereignty, where one is no longer a subject to any other or organization.
Buddha was a Sovereign, not a subject.
Buddha was a Man (a Manu), not a human.
Buddha was potent, not impotent.
Buddha was with expectation of conditions, not unconditional.
No human female social strategy could make sense under Bodhi nature; neither could the male human innate driven element of socially competing with and undermining other human males.
If Bodhi was that of males undermining each other and seeking to constantly overthrow each other, as is innate in human males, then it would not be Bodhi, just as it is not Bodhi in how females use empathy to manipulate each other, their young, and their spouse, which causes far more harm than any weapons of war ever have and will.
Bodhi is neither male nor female, because Bodhi is not a human province, but is the province of the Manu.
But Bodhi was more approachable by male humans than female humans, because it required a self-power that required individualism, asceticism, and danger, to which female humans interest is averse to. Female interest is collectivist, comforting, and averse to risk.
But this has been changing, as more female Manu seem to be popping up than male Manu.
So the point is that when humans came to Buddhism in masses, as they did, they did not come as Sovereign, as empowered with analytical thought, standing with wisdom and virtue, and then that of a devotion to get others to the same empowerment.
Instead, they came meek, humiliated, timid, simple, docile, emotional, and suffering. And when one comes this way, it shapes what they are looking for. So in Buddha, they made "enlightened mommy" and asked her to end their childish impotence and suffering.
Duhkha is about displeasure, cravings, pain, wants, delusions, and more than anything, the passions. This is why it is meant to be alleviated, not shared in. But to alleviate is not the point. Karuna is not about alleviating one from this state. It is about when one is freed from this mind state of duhkha, this attitude state, they are then raised to that of being a Sovereign, a Sage, and a Warrior of life.
When one knows what they ought to want, and how to get it, they will not be displeased. When one does not know their own nature, and what is suited and possible to that nature, their aims will be delusional, and they will never be pleased with their gains. This is like saying, if you seek what others tell you to seek, you will not necessarily like what you get in the end, because you are not them, now are you?
In actuality, there is no compassion in Buddhism, nor is there a prime ingredient that is suffering. Everything the reader has heard about Bodhi is wrong.
Vajrapani, called the Dharmapala, or guardian of the great Accord (or that of the Dharma), is defensive, protective, and has been justified in his use of physical force and harm against those who would come against those seeking to be in accord with the Dharma.
Perhaps, now, we are beginning to see why Buddhists, who have been made pacified, have come to forget that the Buddha was not a pacifist : he showed mercy and restraint where he could, and he destroyed and threw down those whom he could not show mercy to. Vajrapani is the Buddha who has long been forgotten, because he is no "chump".
"Power" in the Buddhist sense
Iddhipāda
This term is a compound term composed of "power", or "potency" (iddhi), and "base", "basis" or "constituent" (pāda).
It is often stated this is a reference to "spiritual powers", which are called "base of power", and they are seen as secondary to that of the mental qualities that achieve such powers.
These four base mental qualities are : concentration on intention, concentration on effort, concentration on consciousness, and concentration on investigation.
This term can as well be translated as "faculties", in the sense of mental powers.
Concentration, or mental focus is the base :
-Intention, or purpose, or desire, or zeal (chanda)
-Effort, or energy, or will (vīrya)
-Consciousness, or mind, or thoughts (citta)
-Investigation, or discrimination (vīmaṃsā)
These four are said to be developed in tandem with "volitional formations of striving".
Vīrya
The element of vīrya is now important to address, as this will surface throughout.
Vīrya literally means "state of a strong man", or that of "manliness". In Buddhism, this term refers to a practitioner's "energy" or "exertion", and is repeatedly identified as a necessary prerequisite for achieving liberation.
In Buddhist context, vīrya has been translated as "energy", "persistence", "persevering", "vigour", "effort", "exertion", or "diligence".
In this context, vīrya is defined as the attitude of gladly engaging in what is wholesome; its function is to cause one to accomplish wholesome actions.
What is vīrya? It is the mind intent on being ever active, devoted, unshaken, not turning back and being indefatigable. It perfects and realizes what is conducive to the positive.
In the Kīṭāgiri Sutta, the Buddha instructs his followers :
"... For a faithful disciple who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is natural that he conduct himself thus: 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy [Pali:viriya] shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength [purisa-tthāmena], manly energy [purisa-viriyena], and manly persistence [purisa-parakkamena]...."
-Thee Buddha
It stands for strenuous and sustained efforts to overcome unskillful ways (akusala dhamma), such as indulging in sensuality, ill will, and harmfulness.
Often connected is the assertion that vīrya stands for the right endeavor to attain dhyāna, or that is, Zen.
Vīrya also signifies courage and physical strength, and was cultivated by the Buddhist guardians, including the Shaolin monks. It signifies strength of character and persistent effort for the well-being of others, as well as the ability to defend the triratna from attacks. The triratna is a symbol that represents the three treasures of Buddhism.
Why, in this description, does it seem as though what I have to say about Buddhism keeps pointing to a Warrior nature/identity/character, when Buddhism is supposed to be a pacifist system or ideology?
Where vīrya is to be found in Buddhism, this is the nature of it, and it has been so declared as a necessary ingredient in all aspects of the mental focus, and that of acquiring the "power base". Yet absent is it, so much in the minds of Buddhists and their admirers, especially the impotent and weak western "hippy Buddhists".
Vicāra
Keeping with the v's, this term needs to be added to the flow : that of vicara, also vicāra, which is the Sanskrit term that is often translated as "discernment" in Buddhism, or too, "sustained thinking". It is considered fundamental and essential to that of Zen, both in Buddhist and Hindu traditions.
However, just as Zen will prove to be elusive, as is this vicāra, in the realm thereof. The Hindu elements of India were fused with Buddhism greatly, as the followers of the Buddha were Hindu and Indian.
In the Mahāyāna disicpline, vicāra is defined as a mental factor that scrutinizes finely to discern the specific details.
If you have guessed it already, this is strongly connected to this taxon notion, at which I have mentioned earlier.
Also, this investigation or discrimination (vīmaṃsā) is a matter of vicāra, placing both that of vicāra and that of vīrya as essential to that of the concentration stated to be necessary for that of developing the "power base", or iddhipāda.
Vicāra (विचार) means "deliberation" to many. Its roots are :
वि, a prefix to verbs and nouns it expresses;
चर्, to move, roam, obtain knowledge of.
It is the faculty of discrimination between right and wrong; it is deliberation about cause and effect, and the final analysis.
It is said that, in English, there is no corresponding word for vicāra, but this is false. The corresponding word is Ratiocination.
Vitarka is at the root of vicāra, in that vitarka is bringing the mind about to focus, that of "thoughts", "applied thinking", "attention", and that of "initial application of thought".
It is the mental faculty that mounts or directs the mind towards a subject.
When it comes to apprehending the quality of a subject, or that is, an object, it is vitarka that is in question, or that is, in motion or attending to this matter. The investigation into things of vitarka can be called a rough investigation, a starting base of an investigation, more general than specific.
Whereas vicāra is then initiated, and an exact account is acquired of that of the origin and nature of the manifested, as it can be said.
This vitarka is a starting ground where active and deliberate attention and investigation is applied, whereas vicāra becomes that on the grounds of a talent, a flow where that of the algorithm of Ratiocination is paramount.
Chanda, taṇhā, kleshas
Moving on the line further into that of the concentrations, we have the core factor of chanda.
Chanda is the starting aspect of the whole mental process. It is often translated as "intention", "interest", or "desire to act". It is defined as a desire to, as an eagerness to offer, to commit, to apply oneself to "cultivation" and contemplation of one's nature. It is an active choosing of apprehension.
At the human base level, one begins with taṇhā, which is seen as "thirst, desire, wish", and it is meant to become converted into chanda. In Buddhism, it is broken into three types : kama-taṇhā (craving for sensual pleasures), bhava-taṇhā (craving for existence), and vibhava-taṇhā (craving for non-existence).
This can be seen as the base human impulse, from that of being a heterotroth, an animal in need of sustaining its life through actions. The cravings will be in regard to the pleasures and pains of the flesh, craving to take action, of a known nature or not, and that of craving to be free from the need to act, or that is, to escape.
It is often stated that the cause of duhkha is that of taṇhā. This brings me back around to have illuminated, then, that duhkha is not suffering as a simplicity, but it becomes a matter of displeasure as drawn from these cravings being of the base nature of one's being, and not having within it a guide of right to one's nature, and wrong to one's nature. The craving has not the code of right and wrong within it.
These cravings are present, and shall always be for humans, and therefore, the conversion to that of energy spent, or effort spent towards chanda, taking up that of the cultivation and discovery of one's nature, and the nature of reality.
Meaning, "thirst, longing, greed", either of a physical or mental sense, illuminate the significance this has to duhkha. However, the source of these impulses is due to the heterotroth aspect, and the corporeal aspect of being human.
It must be stated that when it is said that taṇhā is what manifests as suffering and rebirths, one will need to reject this interpretation, often carried out by those far from Sovereign stance, and therefore, caught in the delusions of the Hindu aspect of Buddhism. Taṇhā is not about rebirth, nor is it about suffering. The use of suffering is foolish in Buddhism.
Taṇhā generates the wants, and the wants, if they are not akin to the ability and/or the being doing the wanting, lead to a displeasure, or insatiability in the cause and effect aspect, the wanting and the getting. When one is not satiated, or satisfied, they will want more and more, hence the greed. They can not be satiated, because the want is in error. This is the key. Afterlife savior nonsense is not needed. Suffering is an emotional by-product and has nothing to do with taṇhā.
Suffering, in a sense, belongs in the category of kleshas.
This is the category that can be translated as afflictions, defilements, destructive emotions, disturbing emotions, negative emotions, mind poisons, and the likes.
Kleshas are seen in Buddhism as mind states that cloud the mind and manifest unwholesome actions. These are seen as states of mind, such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, and the likes of these.
In Mahayana Buddhism, it is often stated that the three kleshas of ignorance, attachment, and aversion are the root or source of all other kleshas. This begs the question, then, ignorance to what, attachment to what, and aversion to what?
For starters, ignorance of the nature and identity of the thing seeking, and what is being sought. When the pursuit actor pursues a thing based on ignorance, which is the natural state, then the outcome of acquisition will likely be undesirable and averse to their being. This ignorance must be cured.
Buddhism, under the control of the followers, not a Buddha, adopts a heavy relationship to that of the samsara, or rebirth cycle aspect of Hinduism. This can be seen even with the kleshas, in that it had taken time for the ideological connection to be developed, where it was said the three roots above would be the three poisons, and the kleshas then themselves, to that of becoming the main cause of the samsaric existence.
Now again, though, herein initiates another question.
Is samsara about death and rebirth of the physical sense and form? OR is it about mind states, where death is falling into the hell mind, or the base mind, pulled there by the kleshas, and the Heaven mind, or that of the high mind, is hard to reattain and dwell in? So then if this was the case of the latter, it would make metaphorical sense that the kleshas keep one in the hell mind, where it is often called the hell of the hungry, or greedy ghost, the preta mind, and that of the preta beings. That one only gets a glimpse into the high mind. Nirvana, then, would be this sense of ending the kleshas bringing one back to the hell mind, and instead, one comes to dwell solely in the Heavenly mind, becoming that of a Buddha, one who does not come, nor does he go (tathā-gata).
I reject this concept of samsara of the physical sense of death and rebirth. That is Hinduism, and if Bodhi is about awakening to reality, none would call themselves sincere if they are concerned with samsara of the physical sense. However, of the metaphorical mind states, it is usable, but when one comes to define their nature and to come to accord with it, they should too have transcended the metaphor and be into Ratiocination, or that is, vicāra.
Klesha is often connected with the five hindrances : sensual desire (kāmacchanda), anger (byāpāda), sloth-torpor (thīna-middha), restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca), and doubt (vicikicchā). Also, klesha is identified as a component of, or synonymous with craving (taṇhā) and lust (rāga).
Buddhism then has, in its ideological system, that of the ten defilements and unwholesome roots. However, in the Sutta-Pitaka, there is not a list offered of the kleshas, but instead, it comes much later that they are then termed for followers of Buddhism. Again, this is not the Buddha doing this, this is that of the followers, and non-Buddhas creating a system of thought. I say this because the focus becomes heavy on the "thou shall not be this and that" versus, truly, the "thou shall become".
When the sincerity and vitality are present, and the system of cultivation, consideration, and discernment are employed, the objective is the "right path", and if one is contending with the kleshas, then they should not even be permitted to join a guide in the ascension into self and reality, for they will act as a barrier to both self and acquaintances.
A central sense of this is captured in Visuddhimagga, in that factors are aging-death, and about birth, and becoming, then, inclined to cling, to crave, then that of the sensations or the feelings from contact with the material world, as the sense can give rise to a contact thereof, and then that of the mind abstract in reasoning coming to symbolize one's Sense of Self, and Sense of Life, or reality, building the conscious sense, and formations being set occurring though in ignorance, not knowledge.
All of this is their attempt at identifying of being animal, mammal, human, and with abstract reasoning, and that of the percept, recept, and the concept level of mental mechanics. This will be fully explained in Chapter 8 of Section III, About the nature of humans. By comparison, Buddhist investigative thought needs an upgrade, and I intend to do just that. The ignorance is seen in Buddhism to be caused by klesha, but this is not the case. The ignorance is base, because humans are not born with innate knowledge. Innate impulses, yes, but not a knowledge of them and their application, right or wrong conditions.
Kleshas are often called poisons, and aside from the impulse aspect, Buddhists have tried to explain why they happen, such as :
-Ignorance (or moha, avidyā), being because of the lack of discernment, not understanding the way of things, the nature and origin of the manifested.
-Attachment (or rāga), being simply that of being attached to what one likes, or having a desire for.
-Aversion (or dvesha), for what one does not like, or for what prevents one from getting what one likes.
-Arrogance (or māna), often poorly translated to pride, as having an inflated Sense of Self and a disrespectful attitude towards others.
I say this is not pride, but humans have a hard time when dealing with the joy of others. Pride is a satisfaction in one's achievements. Pride is neutral and isolated to the individual. However, those in kleshas will see such joy and its displays as negative. And therefore, pride gets thrown in with arrogance and conceitedness. This is an error in the nature of the being. Pride is in the "winning stream", as it is called in Buddhism.
-Envy (or irshya), being unable to bear the accomplishment or good fortune of others.
Samatha
On matters of coming to overcome the kleshas, it is often stated that what is needed is for them to be pacified—though they can not be eradicated, so to say, as they are innate—is that one must develop or cultivate insight into the nature of the kleshas, how they arise, and so on. The goal is to come to the unified state of deliberation, or that of samatha.
In Niō Zen, there will be a difference, because the focus is not on that of pacifying the passions, or the kleshas, but instead, cultivating high states and seeking to remain in them. When this is done, it re-habituates one's system to where the instigative urges and forces of the kleshas will loose hold and fall into low potency through lack of use and expression. It is using the power of non-contradiction. If one's chemicals are potent in the realm of excellence, they can not at the same time be potent in the realm of the hell mind, or preta realm.
This cultivated and habituated state becomes that often called in Buddhism abhiññā, or that of "knowing", or "direct knowing", or that is to say, "higher knowledge". However, this does not make the state clear.
It is that knowledge which is obtained not through study, or recitation, or rote, but that knowledge which is obtained through virtuous living and cultivation of one's nature and the great Accord. The error in Buddhism is this begets the Hindu notions of supernatural sense and abilities, and this is to be rejected in Niō Zen.
Abhiññā is about habituating one's self-knowledge of their nature as it is brought to excellence, and cultivating only the states thereof. This begets this wholeness realm of one being therein and of one's self. There will seem to be some super added sense aspects, because the mind will be far greater in potency than that of the unrealized and ignorant mind of others. This is not supernatural; this is healthy and the way it was meant to be for "some".
In Buddhism, abhiññā has been converted over into the nature described of the siddhis of yoga and Hinduism, mentioned in the Bhagavata Puruna and by Patañjali. Again, wherever you see the elements in Buddhism that are not grounded on demonstration, and concerning the reality that is able to be described and confirmed, this is due to Hindu followers, changing the Buddha's intent and matching Buddhism with Hinduism. The attachment of the followers to the explanations of their Hindu system could not be reduced; therefore, in many ways, Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, with only the unique personal journey added by the Buddha, but hidden in so much nonsense of the charlatan Hindus.
In the Historical Sketch to follow in publication, I shall show that, in actuality, Sakyamuni began his journey and was active outside of Vedic influences. In essence, other than its connection to the early medicants, Sakyamuni's liberating path was massively distinct from more southern cultures and customs. But again, this is not for now.
In Niō Zen, samatha is not to be seen as "pacifying the mind", but instead, is about coming into a state of auto and calm analysis by habit. Meaning, one cultivates the mental tools and understanding to come to discover the nature of thyself and/or that of the observable. The discovery of the origin and nature of a thing of mental interest then incorporates into a right decision in regard thereto. In this right knowledge state, there is a "resting" with the mind, because the right method has become habituated.
This is liken to when a scan is done on those with higher mental mechanical assertion, and how it is economized, not stressed. This is to say, commonly it is believed higher intelligence means one would find higher active areas. This is not true. Instead, what is found is efficient effort, due to the mind's mechanic being proficient. When the insight through investigation into the nature of things becomes proficient, the effort gets reduced more and more, coming to that of a resting insight. This can be called moving from that of deliberation, definition, and categorization to a state of algorithm, in that the process becomes eventually automated. This automation of the process of insight into the nature of things liberates one from the deliberation process. This is called samatha, in Niō Zen, whereas Buddhism is confused on this matter, having not had the insight of a Buddha in a very long time.
Māna
It must be noted, before ending this chapter, that māna, as I stated earlier, is not pride, but is an arrogance, which is an exaggeration in one's Sense of Self. It is an exaggeration, because it is a delusion. This means one does not know themselves, their abilities, and their inabilities, but has a Sense of Self that has been developed in ignorance and delusion. However, because Buddhism is the product of emotionals and those who have envy, not a Buddha, it has adopted the common values of the masses in how they see māna, or that is, what they define it as. It has been hijacked by the feminine sense of "one not seeming to be better or less than others". In essence, it is used to bring about conformity, where none is greater or less, but "equal". Equal means conformed. And this often means a mediocre form of conformity, where excellence is not the pursuit.
All of that which was the Buddha pointed towards becoming greater. Them with knowledge of self are greater in understanding and knowledge than those ignorant to the self. Those who are with greater knowledge of reality perform better and gain more than those who are ignorant to it. The notion that "no one is better" is a childish and emotional notion, brought to Buddhism by the infirm and the weak emotional minded. They fear judgement and accountability, and when all are equalized and pacified, then they escape judgement.
This emotional variant of Buddhism, carried in by the impotent masses, will not find its way into Niō Zen.
Niō Zen is not about some being better than others, because Niō Zen is not collectivist. Collectivists measure themselves against each other even when they forsake this. However, Niō Zen is about one being better than who and what they were yesterday, not in comparison to others, but in comparison with one's self. Because of this, one will become better in those qualifiers than others, but this will not matter to them, because it is not about others. For the weak and the infirm, it is always about others.
So when you see Buddhist thinkers, making māna about not being better or lower than others, you can detect that a weak and infirm emotional has made their way into the fold, and has hijacked their spot in Buddhism. The Buddha was pushing what he deemed better, and as a masculine male, he did believe there was criteria, and as one who pushed manliness as he did, this meant being potent, not impotent. These are not in sexual terms, but in the common sense of power over no power. This was not about power over others, but over one's self : Sovereignty. The Sovereign is better at freedom and self-command than the subject. Better or worse begs the question, in and at what?
All of what is called māna and arrogance in Buddhism is weaponized to bring all who would come under a command of conformity, and eventually mediocrity. Perhaps this is why if there were a Buddha, they would avoid Buddhism, as it is in captivity of the emotionals, the meak, and the impotent of mind and form.
Harsh, you may say? Bodhidharma was far harsher, and I am sure if you were to truly learn of the expressions of the Buddha and his condemnations, you would find a harsh tone as well.
Here, have a taste of the Buddha's harshness :
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
-Thee Buddha
And follows the story, on this matter.
Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student.
This shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant by "killing" : he wouldn't train the student any further, which essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.
Chapter 3
On the Order of Thee Quest
Over the last decade or so, I have been testing a desire, a want to have it that those of a more common nature could come to make use of a science that is best called esoteric in form. Esoteric could mean hidden, or better, inner, in the sense that for it to be gained, one must initiate into its system of learning.
Initiation, in this sense, should not be taken to mean to join in an order a society or a group, such as undergoing ceremony. Though this is how the term has come to be used, the actual sense of it meant to learn by degrees and through a hierarchy of notions. That for one to gain in the next understanding, they must have proficiency in the previous one.
An example would be that which can be found in the Fraternal Order of Freemasonry. They have three primary degrees, and then a set of complimentary degrees. One is supposed to be proficient in the first degree to understand the second, and so on. However, this fraternal order has become more symbolic in their ways than practical and applicable. Their candidates and members do not truly get tested, nor prove themselves to be of the mind and character of their order.
One can take it upon himself to develop and cultivate his character to being that of Tubal Cain, or never even come to consider the character and notion of becoming him.
This chapter is called "On the Order of Thee Quest".
Thee Quest should stick out, versus the quest, or a quest. ''Thee'' implies that it is supreme and specific, a thing of its own, so to say. Now this is true, but can be confusing.
The term Quest is ambiguous. Ambiguity is common when considering the past in religions and some ideological systems. When ambiguity was being present, this offered a great deal of freedom in interpretation. The more ambiguous the terms were, the more a single individual could shape a system to match their needs, to be as they wished, versus that of what was the original meaning and purpose of the innovator, guide, master, teacher, prophet, and so on.
This leads to many sects, types, branches, and versions of single systems. This is true of Jewish beliefs, Christian beliefs, Islamic beliefs, and... Buddhism.
Ambiguity becomes the enemy of precise and valuable thought. Many systems of thought of the past are not composed of the writings and notions put forth by their originators or innovators.
The Christos, the Christ, or that of Yeshua Ben Yoseph (Jesus), did not write the book called today the New Testament or Bible. Nor was he the one to have spread the religion of Christianity out to the world and grow its numbers. This religion is the work of Paul, and its widespread presence is the work of the Romans, Constantine, and established institutes of power.
One can rightfully ask the question : who was the actual and real Jesus (Yeshu) and what was his real message, versus the surviving one?
This question is asked often, and whole libraries can be made with just books alone on the historicity and character of the Christos. This is because what remains in his name does not have his mark, but has the mark, instead, of other humans.
This mark, we can call Thee Master's Mark. It is a stamp of ownership, a stamp of recognition and responsibility for one's work. Too, in that Freemasonic Fraternity, there is a degree of knowledge concerning the master's mark. In the works, in the product, the master's mark exists for others to come to know and judge. For Christianity, Yeshu and his master's mark is not what remains. At best, the master's mark on Christianity is that of Paul. Therefore, Christianity is his product.
In my life, I have traveled all around this world. I have lived among Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Wickens, atheists, and so on. I have been a wandering orphan Man the entirety of my life. This is a blessing. No cage can be worse than the one of standing in one place the entirety of one's life.
Now, this is not to say traveling and adventuring in and of itself is the value. One can be all over the place and trapped in their own mind, seeing through a simple filter that leaves them with little authentic experience.
I have observed many traveling males and females to be just as mundane and without awareness as the stable kind.
But in these wanderings, I was often asked by the Christian folk what my relationship with Christ was. They would then go on to speak of Paul's Christianity, and at times I would say, I would be more quick to look to James, the brother of the Christos, for the better picture of his character and ways, than that of Paul.
I would say, I do not trust Paul. This would confuse them, when they would hear me come to speak of Paul instead of the Christ. It was as if to hear from me that Paul is the gatekeeper to a sense of the Christos was a new way of seeing things, and an odd way. Though it is simple logic. He, Paul, promoted and spread Christianity. He, Paul, never knew the body and character of Christos, but rests upon his own claim that two years after the death of the Christos, the Christos spirit came to him, and appointed him an apostle.
James and others lived with and among the Christos, in flesh, with his character before them, and his teachings, direct. So then the natural Reasoning bestowed upon me and hardwired into my essence states I ought to be suspicious of this one Roman agent, and persecutor of those of "Thee Way".
But to a Christian, more often than not, this is me giving far more thought to their system than they have, or would be willing to. In fact, of all the religious folk of this world I have met, I have not seen any more lazy in their worship and reverence than that of Christians.
For many of them, it is a simple tribal association rather than an actual system of living, being, and understanding.
I am not a Christian, yet my relationship with the Christos is intimate, and through the madness of Paul's master's mark, combined with a scholarly approach to the character of Christ, I have found the Christos master's mark, and revere it. But what I have found is not the mark familiar to others, nor adopted by others. And therefore, my sense of the Christos is far from the sense held by the common many. I, therefore, love who they say their master is, but I do not love who their actual master is : Paul, and that of the institutes of humans who are more concerned with power and control than illumination.
Those who have heard of this expression, the Order of Thee Quest, will know that in any search of it, there is hardly anything to be found. Those who are ignorant of its nature and character will connect it to the "Illuminati" and Freemasonic conspiracy thinking. Why? Because Manly P. Hall has with irresponsibility mentioned the Order of Thee Quest, and because he is a well-known writer on esoteric systems of thought, those excited but ignorant minds chose to do as they wish with this phrase.
I have every intentions of fixing this error committed by Manly P. Hall, while attempting to respect the common sense rules of speaking on such a topic.
This Order has no name. It has no name for the very reasons I have been speaking of : that of the common hijacking of ideas and notions carried out by those not of the right character of the innovators, initiators, and originators. This Order is not one that another can seek out, initiate in, and usurp. Out of all esoteric organizations that have existed, and will exist, this is the only one that demands of its initiates that they possess innate talents not found among the commons, and not of the human sort. What do I mean? "They" find the one fit for, and with natural advantages to understand the nature of Thee Quest, for even without "them", such an individual would be inclined to journey on Thee Quest.
Why? Because Thee Quest is a natural product of their innate being. This means in certain individuals born of humans, their "Man-ness" arises and guides them even with no master, towards a universal understanding that surpasses all humanly discoveries. This sounds simple, and is a simple notion, especially in those it applies to. In Buddhism and Eastern thought, this impulse and compulsion has been called "Thee Dharma" and has been rendered "the Law", "Reality", and poorly, the teachings of those who have come into accord with it. This latter should never be the case, for Dharma is not a matter of teachings. It is like how the Muslims call their submission to Allah. It is a submission and an accord, not a matter of free will, choice, or struggle for those the "Dharma insight" is a part of. They do not struggle to be in accord. Accordance is innate in them, and they are compelled. The primary characteristic of Dharma is Ratiocination, and in those where this talent, this insight is innate, they are born of a Ratiocinative nature. This, however, is limited. This is to say, only a small few, an elite have come to embody this nature, while the bulk have an approximation of low potency.
This is rare. But when it is the case, the individual with this nature has a mind of insight that makes sense of the human experience, the transcendence to Man, and the accord of the Sage. This, they do with no need of books, guides, masters, and systems. By their nature, they look upon observable phenomena that are external and internal, and they come to Ratiocinate their way to the divine. A little reason inclines Man to atheism, but a Ratiocinative nature and use bring the Man's mind back to the divine. This is an alteration of the quote of Sir Francis Bacon, one who was born with a Ratiocinative nature. His was powerful, but his time limited its expression and development. Conditions of liberty are significant to the exercise and use of the Ratiocinative nature.
This is why the Order of Thee Quest has been behind the scenes throughout history, trying to bring about "free societies" and that of an unusual access to information and development. But what they do not do is to reveal and unfold "thee esoteric science".
This is because it is a science of self, and it is developed in understanding through degrees, like I have said previously. This Order tags and brings forth only those of this Ratiocinative nature. Say one had shown themselves to be so, in any field, or recognizable sense, so then would an emissary of the Order find thee, and bring thee into their fold. Their numbers are small, and as an Order, they are in no way, shape, or form the controllers of government, and those who have dictated the events of wars and power grabs. No conspiracy is needed to understand how government works and power grabs occur. This is the beast in the minds of those of you who seize office and positions of power. This is the error of the masses and the commons, not the elite and illuminated.
Sadly, one with a Ratiocinative nature can not infiltrate bad political bodies and positions of power. This is because such a nature is compulsory. This means, in the eyes and observation of the commons, one with this innate nature would be easily identifiable as foreign, and not kin. Short bits of concealment can be made use of, and short bits of infiltration, but not long term legends of concealment.
Those of this Order, instead, influence in the realm of culture, literature, media, and individual mentoring. They reach out to those with good characters and plant the seeds in them to lead, to guide, and to influence the world to be with liberty, with Reason, with justice, and with cultivation.
When one is tagged and initiated into this Order, they are given access to hidden previous works of their members that is often written in such a way that only those of the same nature could truly comprehend their dictates. Because this Order is ancient, such literature has been in many tongues and translated over and over into most of the world's languages. Then when the Order had put forth some members to seek to bring back a "one human" language, like in Babylon, they sparked the creation of Lojban and translated previous works of members into this constructive language, which is a language best suited to the nature of Ratiocination.
These writings of the past members help prepare a present brother, or member, to deal with the matters of language, communication, and coping with the social systems forced upon them by the masses and their animal corruptions.
Unlike the Fraternal Order of Freemasonry, the Order of Thee Quest is not veiled in symbolism, allegory, and metaphor. The Fraternal Order of Freemasonry and all they would have to offer would be like that of one being cultivated from the age of four to that of the age of eleven, and being prepared for Reason, and the coming of age as a Man. This is the best way to see the Fraternal Order of Freemasonry. So then when one is of a Man's age, but is still human, it could help him, if he knows how to use this fraternal order, but the instructions can not be found in it, nor in its members, and are well lost.
The instructions are in the works of Sir Francis Bacon.
The adult male in this fraternal order, when older, should revert their Sense of Self back to seeing they are a babe, and that mastering this fraternal order's notions is simply preparing to come of age, and is in no way an attainment of the highest "Order".
Metaphor, allegory, symbolism, and rites are for children, and are necessary in the development of the common sort of humans, but for those humans able to transcend to become Man, they must then evolve into Reason, definition, exactness, and discernment.
In the past, there were more resources for those who would come to understand this and complete their coming of age. However, now, in this industrial world of ease, there is little to no provocation to do so, but a massive amount of resources. A way of knowing who is fit for this transcendence is in the observation of the character of the individual. If they have heard the call to Reason, and they pick up the task and can not stop afterwards, then it was innate to them to try to become Man. But if it brings nothing but suffering, despair, and malcontent, then they were meant to remain human. Remaining a human is not negative, nor positive, neither is it to transcend to be Man or Sage in the following stages. These are all degrees of being what one is, that is, being their nature. One's nature cannot be called wrong. Not being in accord with one's nature can be. This is why "the call" is made so that those not of the human nature, but being expected to be, and thus, suffering, may find a way out of this suffering, and into the delight of becoming self-realized. Self-realized is simply to say realizing what the dominant and innate attributes and characteristics of one's self are, and choosing actively to become in accordance with them, versus being characterized by the collective, and conforming to that characterization.
I know, I have yet to define the difference between human and Man. This will be fully explored in Section III of this treatise. Though this will be my first published work, in no way it is my first at writing. I have been writing to a select few for decades, prolifically. Most of my writings have been one on one. When becoming published, I can now send the investigator to the books. This too is what has motivated me to develop this particular system of thought. Over the last decade, I have experimented and investigated many human affairs, and this matter of transcendence. I was previously not ready to affirm any position, as I was still investigating. But I have now finished my investigation with the acquisition of great certainties.
This matter of the Order of Thee Quest, and why I have chosen to write about it, is this : the Order does not have anything done in its name, for it has no name. Thee Quest is not its name. It is this innate compulsion inside those born of a Ratiocinative nature. Now, I must make clear that the reader should not jump to assume this about themselves, that they were born of a Ratiocinative nature. This is highly unlikely, and it would be unmistakable. You would have systems and methodology for all you do, and in no way would you have been able to conform to and fit into a collective system. You would not have been able to school, not likely able to keep down a job, and unable to maintain relationships with those you were born to. This nature of Ratiocination divides one from all of humanity. It is a huge difference. However, there are degrees of inclination towards Reason. It can be said that there are those more akin to empathetic relations, or emotional bonding, and those who are akin to systems, mechanics, and precision. This latter kind is the kind that is seeking to transcend from human to Man. However, there are those who are simply mechanical, often males, and this is not the same thing.
In essence, Thee Quest is this compulsion inside the ones with a Ratiocinative nature that drives them to a great deal of discoveries. And these discoveries are the same for all with this nature. Therefore, they are all kin to each other. Be them of the past, present, or future, those of Ratiocination are a people with much of what is said in the Order, being that they were indeed once of the same people, geographically and socially, until the divide.
So then the Order has nothing that is said to have come from it, though its influences are in many places. A part of this history of the Order has been that those of a Ratiocinative nature and talent had learned from the Order and had been awakened to their nature, and then arose out before the commons with the hope to help illuminate and raise their condition. These Men have been mostly males of the past, with some being female Men. In the case of my use of Man and Men, it is not a designation of male or female. Instead, it is best to be seen as a type of being. So to say, ''All of what is Man has come from human, but not all humans are Men'' is of the first greatest truth to grasp this mission of understanding before the reader, who may or may not be a investigator. Any human not seeking to transcend to become Man can not appreciate, nor grasp the nature of this treatise. If you, the reader, are finding it offensive to your nature, then you should know that you are not the Man I speak of. This, again, is not negative. But it is better to know this, so that you return to human affairs, and let those seeking to be, or having become Men cultivate separately from your kin, for the two can not mix in a healthy way outside of commerce and trade.
In the past, these Men have come to the masses to teach them of these truths discovered by their Quest. This is mostly because those with this innate disposition of Ratiocination believed they had attained their realizations through thought and action. More often than not, they did not know what was natural to them, and what was natural to others. They, like many, assumed the masses had the same nature, just locked away and needing to be free.
I have, many times before, assumed the same. But in this present form of Thee Quest, I have had access to far more data than ever before, enough to remove this assumption, as it is an error in findings. One can call it a personal esteem fallacy : an error of Reason where one may give others their positive or negative qualities, and believe they are actual to the target. Like to say, for example, I am a good person, and I do not lie, therefore, most are good, and do not lie. They call this naive. The same can be said with negative qualities. For example, one thinks about himself as a liar and a deceiver, and he only knows liars and deceivers, therefore, all are liars and deceivers. Even if these were both true, it would still be an error in Reasoning, because it is one measuring their own esteem, or Sense of Self, and projecting what they are on others.
So then when these "masters" would come forward from their journey on Thee Quest, they would naturally wish for all of humanity to enjoy the benefits they had so easily received. They believed they had found the answer to ending human suffering. However, what they did not realize is that humans are supposed to be in primal conditions for their characteristics to be properly expressed, not in the conditions of Man.
The conditions of Man seek to remove the loop of chasing and defending resources, so that the mind can become the primary concern and focus, and then the noble character born from it. So then Man needs a well structured society with division of labor, security, plenty, and civilization. But all of these things lead to human suffering, because they serve Man interest, not human interest, which is more primal. So humans within Man constructed systems rebel, either subversively where they can, or overtly.
Human readers will not know what I mean about this, because for them, it is too normal to be subversive in their family units, their schooling, their friendships, and their relationships. It is too normal for them to know what I mean. Whereas those who should be Man will know this truth by their scars, mentally and perhaps physically. They will know of the suffering and misery they see humans under in "domestic", that is, Man constructed orders. They will be more aware of the misdirection and deception as well as the undermining nature of humans towards power.
An example is this : in Man constructed systems, individualism, industry, Reason, systems, method, and purpose are stressed and honored. But humans are innately collectivist, altruist, and averse to risk taking and innovating, have greater urges and impulses, thus, emotions, and prefer rituals and customs over that of systems and principles. Therefore, the humans being the masses and the collective, they naturally infect systems best for Man with their own ideological and practical natures. This causes contradiction feuding, and subversive undermining in all spheres. Humans do not know they are doing it, this subversion, because humans are not thinking beings, so to say, they are more guided by feelings and reactions. This is what is meant by the "reactionary mind" in Buddhism. But either the Buddha or his followers did not know that humans, the masses, can not be without a reactionary mind, only Man can. They did not have a difference in their understanding of human degrees of being.
So then the Buddha, the Christos, the Muhammad, the Mithra, the Zoroaster, the Baldr, and so on, would all teach all that they can go from brute to Man, and from Man to demigod, or Sage. It was always the positive belief that all had the same potential, same hidden nature and could achieve. This is an error of Reasoning, due to the lack of ability to consider more humans. Meaning, in the ancient times, one could not collect the amount of data that has been collected in the conditions of today's time.
It is possible the Sage figures knew the difference in potential of the kinds, and ignored this, guided by their concern for all. Or they abided by this knowledge and excluded those it did not apply to, only to later have their systems of thought hijacked by the masses, and the subversive kinds who demanded inclusion.
After all of my investigations in the human nature, I came to conclude that human hardship is due to so called civilization and its expectations. Humans do not do well, forced to be civilized, and because their natures are different from that of Man, they will, instead, pretend, lie, deceive, and misdirect through life to appear conformed, and this causes their hardship.
I can not help humans end their hardships, because I am not a human. If I was, the only solution would be to lead humans back to primal conditions. But I am more kin to Man, though that, I am not as well. So it is not my Quest, nor Thee Quest to serve the interest of humans, but it is the suffering of Men that can be solved. This is Ki to understand. And I believe that Men and humans should not live and develop along the side of each other. Man is and can be cooperative under noble conditions, but humans can not. They will by their nature thwart and subvert Men, whom they secretly and subconsciously hate.
Like those Men of the past, I come from Thee Quest, and by good fortune, had the benefit of the Order of others too, of and from Thee Quest. My role in the Order of today's conditions is that I am called a ''Law giver''. This means that my particular talent is that I have a rapid correlating mind that makes "Thee Law", or "Thee Accord" more knowable. This means, in Buddhistic terms, I have an innate ability, overpowered insight to the Dharma. The Ki here is that it is innate, and not a product of "meditation", asceticism, or directions of masters. If the Buddha was awakened, this is what this insight leads to. If he is given a status that followers call a Buddha, or the Buddha, I can easily fit the same status. For me, the status is the product of followers, and not of the Man who would have had the insight. It was a way of elevating him to be above them, because they were humans, and they had been conditioned under hierarchies of control, power, and influence. A Buddha, then, is a religious status, a religious hierarchy mostly founded on assumptions made by followers, not by the one with insight. So I am, of course, not a Buddha in this sense. But if Buddha means he who is awakened, aware, and/or in accord with the Dharma, and the Dharma is the ultimate Reality, then I am this. I am a Buddha. But the problem is, if one utters this to a follower, it will not mean anything near what I say, and think. It will instead be filtered, and the follower, for some odd reason, decides the nature of the thing they wish to attain. The reader, if with any wit, should see the problem here. If a follower defines what it is to be "enlightened", and then, the "enlightened" comes to them, matching this definition, and the definition is in reach of the follower, then is not the follower to be treated as "enlightened"? For how can one know of a thing requiring insight that is earned, if they have not earned it?
This does not compute, yet it is the nature of all religions. The followers, often inadequate in mind and character, mediocre in disposition, and without talent, define to all others what "their master" and "their Way" is. The unattained are the gatekeepers to what it is to be attained. This is ridiculous. So to the followers of Buddha, he was a compassionate, gentle, peaceful, serene, rather docile, and simple, possibly absent-minded... entity... just like they are. What is the cause of this?
The cause is that those who would follow are not wishing to actually follow. They are instead attracted to odd systems, foreign systems that claim to have higher states, and when they arrive to these systems, they wish to have those who are gatekeepers in it declare they, the so called followers, are attained, "enlightened", and greater in their nature, though they are no different than the other gatekeepers. This is why in Eastern thought, filtered into Western New Age thought, they declare "we are all Buddhas", "we are all masters", "we can all be enlightened", and "we are all beautiful and great just the way we are". This is silly caca!
This is the work of subversive humans who have hijacked systems that have declared a greater way to be, and instead, made those systems have no discernment, no judgment, and no hierarchy, though nature is all hierarchies. These subversive humans are nihilist, absurdist, altruist, and collectivist, and through the power of numbers, they can take an entire system that is opposite to their nature and bring it to conform to their idiocy. And after having done so, many in its ranks write its books, and shape the way all others see it, becoming the gatekeepers. Buddhism has had this happen to it, perhaps the second the Buddha had died. If the Buddha did write, I am with no doubt his so called followers destroyed those writings after first making them secret and unknown to others, and the result would be a combination of what he said and what they were in their nature.
This is the product that comes about when the "master" has not left their "master's mark", and did not honor this element of Thee Quest; an element that declares a defense of one's productions, and a surety in one's character.
So then this is to say, humans can not understand Man, but Man can understand humans, as they too share in the base characteristics of being human. And then so Man can not understand a Ratient, such as myself, but I can understand a Man and a human, as in me, both have their directional development.
A Ratient, in simple expression, is one who is innately attuned to the primary characteristic of reality, or corporeality, if you will, that of Ratiocination. Attuned, however, is not the same as being in accord, or that of a compelled state of "obedience" to Ratiocination, which does not occur until the mind of the Ratient has biologically matured to adulthood, between that of 28-32 years of life. For me, my obedience became compelled at 28.
This means unlike humans and Man, who possess volition by degrees of difference, the Ratients experience it as they are maturing and begin to loose it as they mature, eventually altogether and being compelled to be in accord with Ratiocination, that is to say, liken to that of the Dharma embodied.
Thee Quest and its esoteric science is all over this world, but it is disorganized, and often contradicted by the ideological infections of humans. Now, I have said being human is not evil nor negative, so one may ask why do I call human ideologies infectious, like a disease, and thus, negative.
It is because this evaluation is subjective, in the sense that it is an evaluation in accordance with the being doing the evaluation. To humans, I am evil and wicked, a villain, and this is correct. To Man, however, humans are captors, oppressors, tyrants, and despots. And I favor the Man's way and inclinations over the human, so my judgment of humans is done both objectively, where my mercy comes from, and subjectively, where I see they are standing in the way of Man's liberty, expression, and furtherance. A wolf is evil to the rabbit, not in conception, as the rabbit does not conceive, but in conditions. But in reality, neither are evil, they are simply "IS", and they are in accord with their natures and dispositions that are fixed. So there is the conditional judgment, and there is the Ratiocinative judgment. The Ratiocinative judgment is used to know the nature of a thing, and what it must be. The conditional is to know the nature of the thing through Ratiocination, to know thy nature, and to make a determination of interaction.
Humans, by their nature, will always hate me, even when, or even especially when they pretend to love me. By my nature, I will always have mercy for humans, but I will know they are bad for me to keep company with, to allow to have power and influence over me, and therefore, I must separate from them, and hope they can solve their own problems. I can conditionally, and by my nature, seek to guide those stuck being human meant to be Man, to be so. Only so much as they prove to be with the capacity to be Man, which most can not. If I come to know they are human only, I must part.
The mercy is not in serving the interest of an incompatible thing. The mercy is in knowing they would seek to destroy me if they could, by their nature, and yet I will still wish for their best, so long as they do not have the ability to come against me. If they are against me and able to harm, hinder, detain, arrest, interfere, restrict, or destroy me, my mercy turns to wrath, as was too the nature of the Buddha. The timid, weak, and pathetic have honed in on compassion of the Buddha because they are wicked, and use it as a weapon against those they would enslave to their ways.
Chapter 4
Is Niō Zen a religion?
Niō Zen is unique as a system of philosophy, and/or that of a religion. Therefore, all of it must be explained and made clear, so that the reader and/or practitioner does not project upon it that of other systems nature and ways. This occurs when a system, belief, or idea is vague, ambiguous and often subject to whim, to which none of Niō Zen is to be. The more detailed a system, the more there is a decrease in chances of erring in understanding.
Before commencing in the substance of this chapter, a matter must be first settled in my use of the term religion, and if Niō Zen is indeed to be considered a religion. It is.
Buddhism has about it a debate, in which unsettled is : is it philosophy, psychology, or a religion?
This debate is often tedious when the debating elements do not first define what religion is.
Religion is not defined by example of religions. So because many religions have a God, that does not mean religion is by default theist. Religion is, at its core, proclamation, that dealing in the sacred, or sometimes called holy.
Sacred in itself then needs to be defined to some extent.
In the Oxford English dictionary that I made use of as a boy, I recall that sacred is first described as of and/or pertaining to God, in essence, and/or devoted or dedicated to a religious purpose deserving veneration.
As a young man, I did not know the term veneration in the definition, so of course, looked that up, deducing it down to that of great respect and reverence.
The key element here is ethical, because it is about values, and ethics is the discipline of assessing and analyzing values via a well-defined method. Niō Zen has a system of ethics particular to it. Niō Zen is not secular.
Secular is that of defined attitudes and behaviors that have no religious or spiritual relations; non-religious and quite often, but not always, anti-religious in practice. Most atheist I have ever met did not simply "not believe" in a God, but they were malcontent about Christianity, and often seeking to be an anti-thesis, as atheism must be.
Niō Zen does not answer for the individual on matters of God. Meaning, it neither affirms or denies the existence or possibility of a "God"; however, it does reject that of an interfering presence that can suspend and/or violate the Laws of nature, as they are fixed. So if one promotes a God that does just this, Niō Zen rejects their testimony.
If a God is the cause of things corporeal, having made them, and set them in motion of life, and is the source of nature and its ways, then that God has made abundantly clear that all things are Lawful. Meaning, that all things follow the Laws of identity, of non-contradiction, and of expressive intention of their identity, and that at no point of conditions does even the slightest evidence point to these Laws being mutable. Now, many will bring up the work of quantum physicists, more often than not, to use a sense of intellect to rather betray intellect and appear smart, when in actual practice and holistic thought, the bulk of their proclamations are absurd.
What is certain is that quantum physics have yet to become a system that can inform one's decision making process. There are valid aspects to quantum physics. However, around it has been born a New Age cult of confusion, and Niō Zen and its practitioners are not interested in answering to quantum theories, when all about is a very clear and observable world as it pertains to the subject doing the observing.
A God would not and could not put before the mind of abstract reasoning this knowable realm, fixed and Lawful one, and then lead some abstract minds into the fray of convincing the rest that God is not Lawful, and the universe is not Lawful, but subject to the whim of the God. This is absurd, as it would be the God making the declaration, in intent, that it has fooled you and intentionally led you astray by giving you 99.99999 percent reality of a clear nature, hoping, wanting, and/or needing you to abandon such to worship it and abide by its ways and whims.
If a God uses prophets and/or messengers, they can not contradict "reality", or that is, if you call it, the "creation". So when they do, their messenger is not of a God, but is a product of the quality of their abstract reasoning, and their condition.
If there is ever to be said to be a great, if not the greatest holy book, it is written in the identity of "reality", not by the hand of one who is only an observer and thinker upon reality, and subject to their own Sense of Self and Sense of Life.
If one is of the Niō Zen leaning, or declares to be a practitioner of Niō Zen, they can not at the same time hold beliefs in the supernatural, and in that of the whim of a deity. On the matter of a God, it would need to be that it falls into the category of beneficial belief, and not proposed and considered to be actual, factual, and demonstrable. This is said to be the same for that of reincarnation, or that of "transmigration of the recollect". Such can be called a beneficial belief, but not knowledge and actual, even if the individual has direct realization of the possible truth of each phenomenon. Such a direct realization would be subject to their individual nature, and is not subject to transmission in communication in the corporeal realm, which is by its nature the subject of discernment and demonstration, with Ratiocination as its primary attribute.
Deism would be the likely nature of a God belief in a Niō Zen practitioner, if they need in their system of thought a God. Deism places the Rational faculty as a divine faculty, a faculty that is the one "made in the image of God", in that they reject revealed religion, superstition, and the need for prophets and messengers, but pursue the cultivation of this Rational faculty as a sacred course.
Niō Zen has the same aim as Deism in this sense, but does not need the deity as the core driver. In this sense, the God line of argument is as follows.
If there is a deity, it is not present in the corporeal realm to be the subject of analysis and discernment. It would need to be existing in another realm, and of another substance other than corporeal, as is the soul argument. So then these would need to be things of "wholeness", and not division and/or corporeality. "Wholeness" is not subject to discernment. Now, is there a bridge faculty in some beings upon this Earth, allowing them to enter a realm of "wholeness", and therefore, in the process, have confirmed for them the presence of the whole and its Laws?
Could be. However, the moment they cross back into the corporeal, they must doubt the experience if it is not activated through skill. And if activated through skill, and at will, they would innately realize that it is not a skill, faculty, or sense common to their audience, and then, therefore, reject any notion of speaking upon it in addressing matters of reality to those here in the corporeal.
Instead, the limits of the receiver are essential, not the potency of the transmitter and their so called experiences, based on their faculties. The corporeal realm is the realm of engagement. If one is reading, it is here; if they are talking, it is here; if they are listening, it is here; and therefore, so then is that the system of greatest consideration must not be correlated to an additive realm, but must be fixed to this realm, as well as the here and now, and not some so called afterlife or rebirth.
That supposed God did not give to the race of beings called humans access to it. However, if there is a God, it has made abundantly clear one of its most exalted and primary attribute, concerning corporeality, and that is Ratiocination, or that is, the divine Lawful Accord. All of what is life and thought return to Ratiocination, and that of fixed identity and intended expression thereof.
A model would be liken to this :
God Realm
Corporeal Realm
Corporeal Realm being Lawful, and the essence Ratiocinative in that those Laws can be deduced and Reasoned upon by a mind, or faculty such as abstract reasoning, with the capacity to do so. No abstract reasoning, no Reasoning on the nature of things. No Reasoning on the nature of things, no Reasoning on the realm one is so steadily limited to.
Abstract Reasoning : that faculty of mind that is automated in the so called human race, and is not subject to their wants of what and how to be, but is fixed in that it is innate to them, and they are compelled by the Laws of identity and nature to use, and only use it, thus ever so only having a symbolic representation of Sense of Life, and Sense of Self, but no direct and innately valid access to what "is", versus what "is not".
The senses of the biological machine of the so called human race, or that which is stimulated by the interaction of bodies in the corporeal realm, and made most noticeable through the sense organ of sight, then sound, then smell, then touch, then taste. All of these senses detect variables of the thing sensed, but would be nothing other than a button if the so called human race was like the other animals, in that it would stimulate in one's kind an innate program that would be present, issuing up the appropriate response. This is not the case in the so called human race, but instead, it must reason on the stimuli and the relationship between them, themselves, and reality. The senses are primary only in the sense that without sensible things, and the means to sense them, there will be nothing to be symbolized. However, the so called human race does not deal in the sensible in their mind, they deal with the symbolized, or the conceivable. Therefore, the primary for humans in the matter of power, control, and influence, is the abstract and symbolic realm, not the realm of that of the sensible.
This track shows why a belief in contradiction should be checked, because all matters fall into these innate faculties. The corporeal realm is proven to have the primary characteristic of Ratiocination, or that of Lawful accord and the ability to be accounted for, because in doing so, power, control, and influence in the realm is increased for the so called human race, and they become commanders, less than subjects to it, though never out of and/or free from it. The power, the control, and the influence are measured in potency not by escape, but by that of coming to express one's innate traits, attributes, and characteristics with the least amount of hindrance. Such is the direction and nature of living, and the intent to have possible that of the corporeal realm's nature.
On beneficial beliefs
Transmigration of the recollect, and/or reincarnation, can be called a beneficial belief because it can motivate and sustain in the direction of cultivating one's innate nature, and freeing up the expression thereof.
For one can come to believe that what work they do here and in the now echoes into eternity, and therefore, feel or sense of their self as immortal, or at least something in the self, such as a belief in a soul.
I hold the beneficial belief of immortality of the "soul"; however, I would never affirm it as actual and factual. God, then, is the same way in this sense, when it is defined as the underlying reality of all phenomena, or that which occurs and is knowable. When this becomes one's sense, as a beneficial belief, then they come to hold that the corporeal is not the limit, though it may be, for most, and they are motivated and strive to surpass the limits of the corporeal, guided by their beliefs, and in the here and the now. When that means cultivating the Rational faculty towards perfection, there is an increase in self-realization and self-actualization towards power, control, and influence over one's being. Therefore, the reward is in the here and now and is potent, and the motivation is not so relevant or in need of being concerned with, and thus was beneficial, be it actual, factual, or neither.
I hold the beneficial belief that there is a multi-realm nature to reality, and consequently, I keep digging and digging via that very faculty. However, I would never affirm that such is actual and factual to another, nor even that it would benefit for them to believe so as well, as one's motivation is of their own.
God as a variable is just not needed, and if there is a God, was a God, will be a God, its design would naturally follow that it made itself not needed. This I say because of the apparent actuality, with those with mind's eyes to see, that in all beings, there is the instruction of what they are meant to express, and that this, so far, is the only apparent mission of life, that is to say, the expression of innate attributes and characteristics. In the other animals, they do not discover things, and they are not in need of discovering their own nature. They are in submission to their nature, not command.
Whereas the so called human race, on the other hand, is ignorant of its nature, and it has volition. Volition can be defined as the absence of potent program, and in such, a "free" state : humans can either come against themselves or be for themselves; self-aware or ignorant of self; virtuous or vicious; accordant or discordant; with all of these variables resting upon the overwhelming apparent fact that the innate attributes are the judge of that. Therefore, if there is a God, it did not appoint itself the judge of your actions and living; it made a Lawful system of causality that will determine when you are rewarded and when you are punished. So then ''God's Laws'' may punish or reward in that sense, but there is no such thing as a God sitting there doing it. It would be simply in the nature of the things, the fixed Laws, and the fixed consequences for being in accord with one's nature, or discordant. God does not kill you when you do not drink fluids and hydrate; the Laws of your nature do, in that needing such fluids is fixed, and without them, death ensues.
So those who then hold a God sense are not criticized as problematic, but their God sense will not be relevant to that of the Niō Zen system. Niō Zen system can be said by those with a God sense to increase that sense of God to a greater perfection, more so than, and most certainly not to find it diminishing their God sense, if they have one.
Niō Zen does not lead one to atheism, and if one has no God sense, it does not lead them to a God or the need of the notion. But if one has a God sense, it will make that sense far more potent than what it was before Niō Zen.
However, this is explained by that of increasing one's own potency in their Sense of Self and Sense of Life. As your potency increases, so does your sense of both the physical and conceptual sense, and therefore, in correlation, so would a God sense and even that of a transmigration recollect sense become more potent.
This, however, does not make them valid, actual, and factual. Therefore, the two remain in the beneficial belief realm, and for many, happily.
Consequently, the answer to "is Niō Zen a religion", is yes. Because this faculty of Reason, or that of the Ratiocinative inclined faculty, is seen as being of the highest sacred order possible, in regard to a God sense, in regard to a transmigration recollect sense, and most certainly, and as a standalone, in the sense of the "holy" and "sacred" status of Man, to be so blessed with the inclination to conceive of the primary characteristic of "reality", that being Ratiocination. Reverence and highest esteem and valuing is to this Ratiocinative essence.
There is nothing to be thought of as taking precedence and primacy over it, even if it comes to be a singular trait of a divine deity. It still, in this realm, is of the highest value and order, and because Niō Zen holds this at its core, it is a religion and it can be called spiritual.
The spirit, in this sense, would mean the whole of the being as it is, and as it directs the mind's eyes that can come to see wholeness, in that parts are not the being, but are subject to discernment, but then in living, they live as a part of a whole, and the whole is the soul. Does that whole have a substance other than corporeal? Perhaps not.
Some have flirted with this notion of bio-feedback, or bio-fields. Does the human body radiate? Well, yes it does.
Is radiation corporeal? Well, yes it is.
Then is it possible there is a subtle whole body that is still corporeal, but is not able to be discerned and/or subject of general abstraction and conceivability? Such is indeed possible, as wholeness is not subject to conception, yet its general sense can be conceived of.
There is a Reasoning track that does indeed illuminate this potential body of the individual called the soul.
However, that Reasoning track requires far more bits of information than most can sustain in conscious consideration, and therefore, they would not be likely to track. So then when those who employ reductive science as a sense of intellect scorn and criticize belief in the soul and/or God, they are committing a great error.
Their targets may not have done the necessary Reasoning of validity to arrive at the conclusion, but this does not mean no one can, and has not.
Reductive science has not and does not explain the so called human race and its condition. It does not explain how symbolic thought can become primary, nor how to, and how, for humans, to come to know their nature.
It does none of these things. Reductive science is good for manipulating the corporeal realm, and consciousness is not showing up in that realm.
This too can be debated, that there is no consciousness, and surely I would agree with them who say there is not one, nor a spirit, with the addendum that they add "in themselves" to their expression, but not in me as well. This to say, if you say there is no consciousness, then perhaps it is true that you are not conscious, but I am.
If you say there is no soul or spirit, then perhaps this is true you have no soul or spirit, but I do.
One tends only to affirm their own thoughts of self and life when they speak of the two, then they do to include that beyond their scope of access. So then one should not be refuted in this matter.
He who declares there is no wrong and there is no right can be observed more often than not doing one or the other, and it is the wrong side they choose the most. For them, it does not mean that there is no wrong, for wrong is simply their norm. Instead, for them it means there is no right, because they can not get right. Their exclusion of the one they can not account for causes them to exclude the other too, which is not accounted for, but lived and acted in, as "IS".
Many would like to think that ethics can be divorced from religion, or that is, a core sacred sense. It can not. An ethical system that is based on human impulse will not be ethical at all. This is because ethics is an intellectual discipline, and in order for it to work right, the intellect can not be rejected and targeted in the process, which, it seems, academics do all the time.
The intellect will need to be sacred, and it would need to be carried out with a purity, a devotion, and a sense of justice. There is no point of ethics when there is not a sense of justice. And there is no point in justice when there is no willingness to destroy that which is unjust by its natural inclinations, and/or actions and choices.
Ethics can not exist without jurisprudence and war. Neither can it exist without logic, epistemology, and ontology. It is a center ground of these other disciplines, and humans can not truly come to these ideas in wholeness, and therefore, they do not truly come to an ethical standing. A human can behave and misbehave, but it can not behave ethically. This is a different matter.
Wholeness in the mind is the key to wholeness in one's character, and then actions, and treatments of thyself and others. Wholeness is a sacred thing, not a secular and human thing. Humans are led by urges, passions, whims, wants, cravings, tribal leanings, familiarity, us and them opposition, and so on; all the things that behave in parts, that are stimulated in the condition of the moment, and not subject to wholeness of mind and foresight. Therefore, ethics can not belong to humans and made sense of by them, but is a matter of the realm of Man. All Man are inclined to follow not a secular sense of being, but a soulful, vital, and vigorous sense of being towards self-realization, self-cultivation, and self-perfection, which all place the self at the sacred core, as aligned with the supreme variable of Ratiocination.
Buddhism may or may not be a religion, but Niō Zen most certainly is.
I am with hope that this matter was communicated with a clarity that Man in captivity can hear, but surely that no human can.
Because Niō Zen is being innovated during a condition where scientific exploration has been grand, it takes on a characteristic that is seemingly more scientific than religious. However, this notion that the two are separate is not held in that of Niō Zen. In Niō Zen, science is a method for investigating phenomenon, and coming to know and codify that knowledge so that it can then be correlated to other knowns, and form a discipline of knowledge, or system of knowledge. Science depends upon ontology, epistemology, and logic—three prime ingredients in the disciplines of mind in Niō Zen.
Science simply is the methodology of investigation and experimentation. Religion, in the sense of sacredness, can not come to sacredness without knowing, investigating, and having then demonstrated the validity of values. Of course, a religion can be anti-Reason and faith based. But Niō Zen can not.
The examples of religions are not what define what one is, as I have stated before.
At the core of Buddhism, as well as at the core of Niō Zen, is the notion of Bodhi, which means to awaken. Its full expression of notion, not easily identifiable in Buddhism, but easily expressed here in Niō Zen, is that of awakening to one's nature, then cultivating and freeing it into expression, and then recognizing or awakening to the nature of "reality". How would Bodhi not be subject to a science aimed at this very objective? Buddhism was supposed to be that science, but instead, it became an ism, and it became a culture, not a methodology, and it now does not know itself.
Whereas Niō Zen is dynamic. It does not become fixed in any condition of any times, but must be constantly reevaluated with the most updated notion of its ways and purpose.
