- You know – I told myself – take something and learn it- make a thorough study of one particular thing – do not jump from one tree to the other:)))) - you will fall one day - you will make a mistake:)))) but what if I simply can not sit on one tree long enough????.... Maybe I haven’t found it yet.. This tree:)))))

- this tree does not exist.:)))) There’s no such thing in nature...:))))))) I’ll explain: You can not receive this knowledge using European method – reading books... and so on. It can only be received by " jumping from tree to tree, falling, making mistakes... But - with an unbending intention! " - With unbending intention to become better, more pure, stronger.:))) That's all.:))) Well, it is desirable, of course, to be supervised by a wiser monkey...:)) Its primary purpose in THIS model (boundaries, framework) is not visible, but the presence of this monkey is necessary...

- why is it not visible????:) for example it can catch the other monkey by the tail - when the fall would be a bit too high (to soften the fall) – or it can give a good kick in a direction of the tree, which went persistently unnoticed by the other monkey.... Or simply for the reason that the dumb monkey could sometimes sit beside the wise one on the brunch and nestle up to it.... And it seems to me that - the silly monkey, when it knows that wherever it runs, it is under the eye of the wise one, then it jumps with more grace (probably just to show off at first) - but then all of it builds into SOMETHING – something that the silly monkey wants to find...

- these are all things of secondary importance...:)))) – the vision of " silly:)))) monkeys ", so to say...:))))

-:))))))))))))))))).. Well , I’ll try one more time........ The main thing is that the other monkey simply CAN NOT do otherwise????... but then I do not get ... why does the wise monkey need all that?

"Two wise apes " (a play).

The Wise monkey: "... The primary goal of the wise monkey is not visible in THIS model, but its presence is necessary... "

The silly:)))) monkey: " Why not visible????:) for example it can catch the other monkey by the tail... But then I don’t get… why does the wise monkey need all that?

Curtain

Chan’ http: // zen.ru/old/Chan_x.htm

- "... Well, it’s ok – we’ll just take a flower and, ca-a-arefully, so, pin it here... - (your words, Klein) – sound association with "Che-e-e- rfully".

- Beautiful.:)) I haven’t noticed it before. I’ll it put somewhere.:)))

- could you indicate the author, if it’s not too much trouble, because I too have nothing to cover my naked ass with :))))))

- I’ll draw a picture - " Ijonahan, che-e-erfully covering his naked ass, according to author’s instructions with simultaneous indication of the author! ", or "Medicine for modesty! ", or " What the oriental cherry was useful for ", or " Following in the footsteps of Japanese monkeys! ", or " Examination of Chian’ and its comparison with Zen! ":))))))))))))))))) Send me your foto if you want.:)))) Actually, don’t do it.:)))

* * *

Mumonkan the Great http:// zenru.org / mumonkan.htm

- " Emptiness is something else. " What? Could you go deeper:) into what the Sixth Patriarch meant to say?

Ok. A question for you. The Sixth Patriarch, Diamond Sutra, and the page about Boddhidharma tell you :" when he is not intimidated, when he’s not frightened... and so on ". My question to you: WHAT can he be frightened of? WHAT scares someone starting on the Path?

Eight particular examples

Hi, all!!:)))))))) It’s Vitaha. Klein! Guram! – Is it possible to examine from different sides the application of the Second Logic, with comments, to show how it works on a particular real life example, please???:))

We’ll try.:)))

But before we’ll do that here is a little introduction.

1. The second logic is a base of your world conception. The first logic is the same. With a different base the conception is changed.

2. Second logic’s scope of application, as well as that of the first, is life.

3. It’s difficult to speak about the results of application of the two logics using the scale "worse - better" for the reason that these scales differ for owners of different logics.:)))

4. Therefore about results - or, " about manifestations ", which are actually the same:))) - we shall speak, applying a scale "the same - different".:))

So.

1. Whether to lend money when you have little hope that the person will pay you back? And choosing to lend does not bring any additional advantages?
The owner of the first logic: no.
The owner of the second logic: in this particular case - yes, and in this particular case - no.

2. To punch somebody in the face is a show of strength or of weakness?
The owner of the first logic: Yes, I think, - yes... – of strength.
The owner of the second logic: in this particular case - yes, of strength, and in this particular case – of weakness.

3. To severe all relations with a person because of a "trifle"?
The owner of the first logic: No, - well, he is a good person in general... and could still be useful...
The owner of the second logic: in this particular case - yes! In this case it was not a trifle.

4. Whether to compromise or be uncompromising?
The owner of the first logic: to compromise. Another option: no compromises. However, when you chose one option – always stick to it – otherwise you are just inconsistent...
The owner of the second logic: in this particular case - yes, and in this case - no. To ponder on an abstract question " to compromise or be uncompromising? " – is stupidity at its uttermost, showing that the ponderer is unable to think. Thinking is an occupation requiring skill. In contrast to bubbling.

5. Whether it is necessary to punish a child if it lies.
The owner of the first logic: No, - children should never be punished. Another option: well, if has lied a little - that to punish it a little, and if it has told a lot of lies - to punish more severly, - punishment should always be adequate...
The owner of the second logic: You can punish the child, or let it go. But always do pay closest undivided attention to these cases irrespective of whether the kid has lied or only was only going to lie... And do eradicate this propensity.:))))

6. Whether punishment should always be adequate to the offence?
The owner of the first logic: Punishment should always be adequate... If, for example, the child has lied or has got dirty, for example, - that should be punished a little, and if much – more serious punishment is adequate...
The owner of the second logic: Punishment should always be adequate... If the child lied - rather severe. And if, for example, it was soiled as a pig - that can be punished a little, but better not at all...:))))

7. If to you have received too much change – should you return it or take it and leave?
The owner of the first logic: Take it!:))))))))
The owner of the second logic: Return it!

8. In all situations - millions of situations - their answers (as results of their base logics) – their words and actions - will differ. But even when they do coincide, so that they act or say the same - remember: When two people are doing the same thing, it doesn’t mean, that they are actually doing the same thing!:)))) Because there is such a concept as context. A context of things you do, of words, ideas, motivations, plus - a context of a particular situation and environmental context, among other contexts.:)))) The owner of the first logic does not see these contexts. And without seeing these contexts it is impossible to make a conscious choice of reaction - of things you say or do. Instinctively – he understands that.:)) Therefore – he does not try at all...:))) Having sold his guts to his " automatic environments "... And to automatic enviroments of others, like religious cults, cult of personality, a cult of money, a cult of political idea, social self-identification and so on...:)))) Therefore when asked: " who are you? " The owner of the first logic will answer: " I the orthodox christian, work as the manager in one of large firms. Well, plus father of two nice kids - a boy, who is 12, and a girl – she is only 3... " And the owner of the second logic will say: " Fuck knows! ":)))))))))))) You remember, what Boddhidharma has said to the emperor U Dee?:)))))))))))))))))

And something else.

Do you know what fascism is? Do you know where it comes from?:))))

Fascism begins when half-baked owners of the second logic start to look at owners of the first logic as on cattle. But - here a subtlety! Is does not mean, that they are thinking badly of them, of owners of the first logic. Moreover, their ideology is noble enough!:)))) They think: " Well, some bastards are driving this herd to a dump, would it not be better, if we will lead them to something that is useful and good! " And after that - the fascism begins. An automatic track of fascism.

Boddhisatva looks at owners of the first logic as follows: " To see Buddha in each alive creature, in each manifestation of an alive creature ".:))))

It is easy to be half-baked...:)))))))))))

Hey!

PS: To start applying the thesis about " your own scale " as a permission not to observe other scales, calling them " automatic enviroments ", to use gold from one safe on a safe wall, not being able to open thousands of others is logical for an owner of the first logic.:)))) Or for a half-baked second logic beginner. The borderlines here are not so clearly defined...:)))))))

Exercise № 11 "Borderline" (continued...)

Find, look at, realise - any borderline and do something with it: draw it, cross it, break it, close it, define it, move it, break it, strengthen it, realise its elusiveness, take it as a support etc.

Tanya Anufrieva tanya@ems.ru Find, look at, realise - any borderline and do something with it: draw it, cross it, break it, close it, define it, move it, break it, strengthen it, realise its elusiveness, take it as a support :Realisation of its elusiveness: in life there are no borderlines – I draw them, most of the time not realizing it. The only borderline that there is is death, which turns into the other life. Life - death, life - death, life - death, life - death. Ideas, feelings, desires - ALL that belongs to someone else, and where, where is there something that’s mine – it does not exist and never has. I know nothing, I don’t realize – I die, fixating on this.

Alexander Denis pentod@comset.net Report of the frontier guard and more... My borderlines are equal to myself. The picture of myself, as a certain essence with a name and surname, with personal history, habits, duties (to others I mean), tabus, attachments, etc. To erase these borders means to lose the warm and cosy house, " taste of beefstake "...

Do you WANT to study? - then make sure that you speak about PARTICULAR BORDERLINES.:))) Pay attention: I name borderlines in Helps from time to time - as required:))) - I name them and put them into inverted commas... The Second logic is knowledge-understanding-formulating-consideration of particular borderlines, particular limits.:))) Borderlines themselves are neither good, nor bad. They are a tool. The tool for analysis of the phenomena (processes), for correct and particular modelling of these processes, for decision making and then – for performance of a particular action. If you are able to see this tool, if you can OPERATE with borderlines of process consideration, then your actions become effective. If not - there is no support for your actions, there is no strategy, there is no monolith stability.:)))

From the borderlines that I needed the most in the last 10 years I have acquired two: " Everything in the world is energy " and "Everything in the world is an illusion, but each illusion is a reality ". It is possible to take these borderlines for a base for change and at the same time not to take it all too seriously:-)))))

I speak about particular borderlines for consideration of particular phenomena, processes, situations. You speak about a way of looking at the world, a model, which can be used to realize a particular borderline, that is used to consider particular phenomena, processes, situations.

R.A.F. roman_f@mail.ruTrying borderline experiences (№ 10) Mr. Klein! All day I’ve tried to find a borderline. Have not found a single one. In fact, there is something that looks, well, I think, as a borderline!? But the homework is to do something with it. So I think, shall I spit on it, or… no, I will better sit down on it. So I sit down, and then I look around and… where is the borderline? Nothing there as if there never was anything. Where have I sat down, may I ask? So it looks like I have to spit on it. When I find a borderline, I smile, then I spit on it, and go in search of further borderlines. What I do find, however, is one girl after another. And I think it is better that way.

Alexey Hodkov alexh@rt.mipt.ru It’s like "not trying to combine a circle with a triangle "?:-) I don’t anymore. Only each time I think that THIS is the Second Logic, it turns out to be something else...:-))))