How
to get absolute bliss
‘If everything is reduced to the one, To what is the one reduced.’ The creator of the medieval Chinese Chan
conundrum (i.e. kung-an, or koan) quoted above was a true Buddha, a master
wanker. He clearly understood that the key to the ultimate experience (or the
experience of the Ultimate (namely perfection and its after-effect, namely
the honeymoon affect)) is (self-) condensation, i.e. the reduction of a
complex self to point (i.e. to unit or quantum, i.e. @1) status/stillness,
prior to (random) contact (and which produces the desired experience of the
Ultimate). The first part of the conundrum, ‘If
everything is reduced to the one,’
(to wit: the nun must reduce to one-ness or @1’ness status, hence kill off
self-interaction to reach absolute stillness, deadness) describes the
approach (i.e. as 1st jhana, first described by Guatama,
the Sakyamuni) to perfection, i.e. to the ultimate as speed @c. The second part, the actual conundrum, ‘To
what is the one reduced’, is a red
herring (or a wild swan (Sanskrit: paramahansa) chase). Obviously, the
one cannot be reduced further since the one has already eliminated the
redundant (because same) bits within). It’s because it cannot be reduced
further, but the nun keeps trying, that the latter’s concentration (i.e. as
degree of self-condensation) continues to increase, until it reaches the
capacity of @c, i.e. of @1’ness. That, of course, was the trick with all
later koans, that is to say, the later koans made no sense, much like the
famous maxim from the Chandogya Upanishad, “That thou art” (Sanskrit, “tat
tvam asi”), and which is fundamentally meaningless, therefore a perfect
concentration focus, provided one believes that it does have a meaning). The 1st part is linear
activity. The 2nd part is resolved by a lateral shift, i.e. by
experiencing the self-affect of contact (with a random (hence lateral, indeed
ubiquitous) event) when @1’ness concentration, hence the state/contact speed
(of @c) of the one, had been reached. However, the problem resolution has to
be found spontaneously by the nun so that she can experience the solution
fully (i.e. wholly, i.e. from within and as a self-whole experience), i.e. as
an (everyday) mind-blowing experience. In other words, when the nun’s
concentration becomes one-pointed, that is to say, when she (i.e. her self)
condenses to unit or quantum status, therefore to the capacity to connect @c,
sudden (random) contact with another (hence random) unit or quantum (for
instance, a twig snapping or another nun farting) will produce, indeed
simulate perfection and which in turn will generate a wholly acceptable
solution (true or false) to the conundrum, namely perfect, i.e. absolute
(albeit momentary, though experienced by the @1, hence one-pointed nun, as
timeless) realness, followed by perfect (non-different) consciousness,
followed by perfect (i.e. absolute) freedom (bliss). Had the Chinese Buddha who invented this
conundrum described the whole method correctly, to wit: ‘If everything
is reduced to the one, What happens
when the one makes contact?’ he would have given the game away, thereby
preventing the spontaneous (hence random) discovery and experience of the solution
by the nun. By giving the game away he would have prevented her from reaching
the desired experience of absolute realness, absolute consciousness and
absolute bliss state, all the former being experienced as absolute because of
the @1’ness (hence absoluteness, hence perfection + joy) state (or
gear/speed) of the nun at the contact (hence breakthrough, i.e. enlightenment
or satori) moment. Since the goal of the artificial (i.e.
arbitrary) exercise (that is to say, of artificial problem solving, to wit.
the Inner Pilgrimage) is to help the nun
self-produce the ultimate and extremely blissful experience, that is to say,
without having to solve a real problem in the everyday world, thereby
becoming connected or attached to the results of the everyday problem
solution, the whole exercise is actually (mental) self-gratification, i.e.
masturbation. In other words, achieving (orgasmic) bliss without
fertilization (i.e. without real contact that results in transfer of self,
i.e. of own identity elements (i.e. information as instruction packs)) is
essentially wanking. In short, the nuns (such as Teresa of
Avila and Catherine of Siena) and yoginis of old (and new, i.e. all
meditation practitioners) and, of course, the monks and yogis, were (and
still are) wanking their brains for bliss, but avoiding attachment (i.e.
reality testing) and the consequences that result from attachment. |