The crack in everything

[lazariuk]

didn't Leonard say something akin to that (only more graciously, of course) about BoM?

I believe so. Ooops sorry, yes he did.

I believe people use the word believe when they are pretty sure of something, but fall short of knowing it absolutely.

Have you not experienced that some people have used the word in that way? and so could you not say that I trust that is the way it is being used.
It is also maybe your experience that people say that they believe a lot of things that they don't have a clue even about what they are saying. People say they believe in a lot of stuff just because they have been told they should believe it. People say they believe there are hundreds of different dimensions.
Your use of fall short of knowing it absolutely can be a big fall short. Someone tells me that a bridge spanning a large chasm is something that they believe can hold my weight is not as comforting as their having faith that it can because they know from experience in that they weigh more than me and it has carried them across. Part of my thinking about the word believe is my thinking about the difference between faith and belief.

I know that the chair I am sitting on is composed mostly of space, but I believe that it will continue to support me anyway.

Again that is trusting your experience. You sit on it enough times and you get pretty confident that it is going to hold you. You trust that to continue.

There are so many things I believe that it will be impossible for me to get away from them all.

You have a wide variety of experience and there is a lot about reality that you trust. There is a lot to trust. The reason that you let your body fall into the chair is that gravity has been reliable 100% of the time. You don't even need to know what gravity is. You have yet to float away like the light princess.
But if someone tells you something that they have no experiential knowledge of, like for example, " saying that so and so has reached enlightenment and can now float free of gravity what is the use of believing it?

I believe you, usually

I try to earn your trust that I am going to be honest in describing what I have experienced and by doing so it can be part of your experience that Jack can be trusted in this way. This is find for things that I have experienced. If I start telling you about what I have no experiential knowledge of I see no reason for you to trust that , but maybe it can be trusted a bit if it is your experience that I am very careful about passing on what others have experienced mostly from people who can be trusted.
I trust you. usually

[daka]

Hi Jack

The commentary that you have referred to with respect to Shantideva has already produced two 'issues' for us. I will quote a bit of Geshe Kelsang's commentary here to show the significant difference in the second issue, Shantideva's motivation:

Meaningful To Behold

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's translation/commentary on Shantideva's text

"the reason for composition (10)

[2] Next Shantideva explains what his reasons are for composing this text. He admits that it will not contain anything that has not been explained before. Also, since he has no skill in the art of rhetoric or poetry, he has no intention of benefiting others who have already understood the teachings of Buddha. Rather he wrote this text so that his own virtue would increase, and his own understanding of the scriptures would not decline and so that his own mind would become better acquainted with the previously explained scriptural realizations."

Tibetans are infamous for not even being able to agree among themselves regarding the meanings of their own language. Therefore the task of translating Tibetan texts into English is extremely difficult. Geshe Kelsang has done so with this in mind, and also with the intention to make the teachings as relevant as possible to the West, to our cultural norms etc. He goes to great lengths to not offend the sensibilities of women, homosexuals, etc.

As you pointed out to me previously, Jack, there are some aspects to the Tibetan translations that would be offensive to western women and they have been removed in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's translation. Also this issue, as referred to by Manna, of 'ungraciousness' leads to what we would call an "incorrect belief" on her part, which is unhelpful. The above translation/commentary suggests humility, graciousness, and realizations and the wish to protect the attained realizations.

daka

(correct and incorrect beliefs will be the topic of my next post. I am having some difficulty keeping up here.. I am not complaining, just commenting.... on the limitations imposed by my two-fingered typing and by my less-than-marvellous mind.)

[daka]

Daka I just keep staring at that word believe and wonder why people use that word.

Hi Jack.. and Manna now too

'Belief' ... you used 'Faith' too... I share your concerns about the use of both generally, and also about my use of both words.

Re: whether you are too "weird" for me, Jack. At times my initial reaction is "how weird". Often however after digesting and working a little with the theme I am left experiencing not weirdness but genius. I greatly appreciate these opportunities when they manifest. If I can't get over the weirdness reaction I will try to remember to confess this to "Father Jack" !!

You had me running back to my mind-manual to look at the important themes you are pointing too so that I can organize the basis of my 'belief system'. I think I sometimes conceptualize Buddhism as a belief system actually! Anyways here is what the basis is for 'belief' in the mind-manual. I contemplated sending this to you by PM for various vague reasons but changed my mind when Manna entered the fray.
------------------------
Correct Beliefs

from "Understanding The Mind" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

DEFINITION OF CORRECT BELIEF

The definition of a correct belief is a non-valid cognizer that realizes it's conceived object.

In general conceptual minds apprehending chair, table, tree, and so on are correct beliefs; except that those that are induced by sense direct perceivers are not correct beliefs but re-cognizers. A mind that believes that future lives do not exist is not a correct belief but an incorrect belief because it is a wrong conceptual mind.

In the Sutras, Buddha explains a special meditation practice for abandoning attachment to samsaric environments in which we meditate on the whole earth covered with bone, marrow, pus and blood. This meditation is a concentration that realizes it's conceived object, which is an imaginary earth covered by imaginary bone, marrow, pus, and blood. This concentration can be a correct belief or a valid cognizer. The meditations on generation stage mentioned in the tantric teachings can be understood in the same way.

DIVISIONS OF CORRECT BELIEF

There are two kinds of correct belief:

1. Correct beliefs that do not depend on a reason
2. Correct beliefs that depend on a reason

An example of the first is a correct belief in impermanence that develops from just listening to instructions on it, An example of the second is contemplating either a correct or an incorrect reason. Some people, who believe the same as the Vaibashikas, think that the body is impermanent because it is first produced, then it remains, and finally it disintegrates. Contemplating these reasons, they develop a conceptuaal mind conceiving the body to be impermanent. This conceptual mind is a correct belief developed from an incorrect reason.

Some people might think that the Vaibashika's view that functioning things are first produced, then remain, and finally disintegrate is correct. This indicates that they do not understand subtle impermanence. In reality, the production and disintegration of functioning things occur simultaneously. Since no functioning thing remains for one moment without changing, the reason mentioned above is incorrect. On the other hand, if we contemplate 'My body is impermanent because it will finally die', we can develop a rough understanding that our body is impermanent. This knowledge is a correct belief developed from contemplating a correct reason. This correct belief can later transform into an inferential cognizer that perfectly realizes the impermanence of the body.

........... etc.

As you suggested previously Geshe Kelsang seems confident enough (based on experience, I believe .... caught myself!.... 'trust', maybe is a better word here) to simply state these things clearly. He doesn't say anywhere "I believe......"

"I BELIEVE!!!" does echo deeply of Christianity and Catholicism!!!!)

daka

LOL I still have to answer re: The Crack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cate]

Can I make a crack at another possible crack?

Jack, you mentioned earlier about all of us waking as something we have in common. (I might be paraphrasing wrong I can't find the quote now )

I think that consciousness (self realization) itself might be a crack, with the light being knowledge.

[Cate]

Jack - your love of numbers - Pi might be close perfect although I don't know of anyone who truly understands it? - or maybe its the biggest crack.

[lazariuk]

Jack - your love of numbers - Pi might be close perfect although I don't know of anyone who truly understands it?

Well today might be your lucky day. I think I know enough about Pi to maybe be able to satisfy some curiosity that people might have about it. What is more is I think it can give me a way to say something to Daka about beliefs that I've been trying to figure out how to say.

First I want to say something about one of the things that I have noticed about Universe. Universe seems to always work with rational whole numbers. It is H2O not H.379O
Every time you half the distance between objects the attraction is 4 folded not 4.6542 folded.
When the trillions of bubbles are being washed onto the shore, Universe is not resolving every one of those little bubbles into so and so many decimal points to accommodate Pi.
It is always using rational whole numbers.

So to talk about Pi we have to go and take a look where it was born.
It was many many years ago during a somewhat cloudy day where a person probably not unlike ourselves sat at a desk and decided to invent geometry.

He rightfully thought that geometry would be a very useful tool for everyone and so he tried to do a good job. The first thing he had to do was decide what sub tools would go into doing geometry and he decided on three. The first was a straightedge ,(a ruler) the second a compass (for scribing curves) and the third was a scriber(pencil or pen). All three tools were well defined by him and have since proved useful. Here is where he went a bit wrong, he left out the fourth tool and that was the surface that all this scribing and measuring and curving was going to happen on.

There he ran into beliefs. They believed at the time that the earth was flat with heaven above and hell below and that flat earth could go on for infinity and hence couldn't be defined. So with nothing else to measure and to place curves on and to draw on, he drew on his beliefs. When doing geometry on our beliefs we have all these ideas about perfect cubes, perfect circles and perfect lines that go off straight into infinity. It is just trying to get the Universe to go along with our beliefs that gives us numbers like Pi. It makes people sick trying to resolve an understanding for Pi.

Those imaginary Straight lines climbing through the sky
The holy science books are opened wide
the scientists are working day and night
but they will never ever find
that cure for Pi

There ain't no cure
There ain't no cure
There ain't no cure
For Pi

What happens when we include the fourth tool when we are doing geometry? When we let go of our beliefs and bring our focus to the world that is right in front of us?
It makes all the difference.

I'll give an example of the multiple to choose from.

When the fourth tool for doing geometry gets defined and we appreciate that if we are going to be doing any drawing it will be on a surface of something. That something will always have an inside and an outside. Furthermore, the surface will always come back on itself. Meaning if you draw a line of chalk going in any direction you can always continue the line around the side behind the back and then return to where you started from. Understand?

So with that in mind that every surface is finite when you make any enclosed area on that surface you are actually enclosing two areas, The area inside the shape and the area outside the shape. For example you draw a triangle on a globe that you have at home and you define triangle as an area bounded by three sides and three angles then on the globe you have two areas that fit that description, the area inside and the area outside. Both are finite areas sharing the same sides and the same vertexes. One might have angles of nearly 60 degrees and the other angles of nearly 300 degrees.

I think that being forced to only consider one side of things that was brought on by our beliefs leads to a bit of inconsideration for others. Saying this was a consequence of what I wrote in the previous paragraph makes sense to me but if you want me to clarify that position more I probably would do so. This fear we have of considering points of views from outside the areas that define us, I think is worth trying to understand.

Also I think there is a lot that we take for granted without realizing that we are just thinking in terms of some arbitrary system that someone thought of. For example when we see the equation E= mc2 people say it is energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. More accurately it is light to the second power. The fact that we used the cube to base measurements on is just an arbitrary choice. The tetrahedron could have been used and then unit volume for one could have been the volume of the tetrahedron and then something to the 3rd power would have been a tetrahedron and to the 2nd power a triangle and that would have led to much more elegant math and then maybe more women would be interested in it. I think of the tetrahedron whenever I hear the term "the stone that the builders rejected"

Thanks for asking me that question Cate.

[lazariuk]

didn't Leonard say something akin to that (only more graciously, of course) about BoM?

I believe so. Ooops sorry, yes he did.

Let me clarify that. I am agreeing that Leonard said something akin to that. I am not agreeing that Leonard was more gracious. I don't know that. They both seem very gracious to me.

Sorry Daka if it looked like I was suggesting that your friend wasn't gracious. I was so busy trying to be funny in using the word believe that I didn't pay much attention to what I was writing.

Sometimes I think that there is not a lie I won't tell for the sake of a good story or joke. Michael might say that comes from a lack of pies, but it's just a piece of Pi.

[lazariuk]

Can I make a crack at another possible crack?

Jack, you mentioned earlier about all of us waking as something we have in common. (I might be paraphrasing wrong I can't find the quote now )

I think that consciousness (self realization) itself might be a crack, with the light being knowledge.

I don't know if self realization is a reality. I looked for myself and never found anything.
Now I think that whole idea of finding your self is just some story and can never happen. Just a waste of time. Awareness is awareness of otherness. No otherness - no awareness= no life.
I think the same can be said about loving yourself.

The quote that you couldn't find is " The crack in everything that lets in the light is what the waking have in common"

[lazariuk]

from "Understanding The Mind" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
DEFINITION OF CORRECT BELIEF
The definition of a correct belief is a non-valid cognizer that realizes it's conceived object.

Daka

They say I have an attention deficit disorder, but all I know is that if I try to understand anything the way people are telling me I should understand things it is like I am using a bag of greased marbles to build a palace. Nothing holds together.

That is what it was like for me to try and follow this fellow Gyatso. It's likely not going to happen that I will get the point of what you want me to see in it. So you can either get pissed off at me for not trying hard enough or you can forgive me or you can not even care but I'm not going to try anymore to understand what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso means by correct belief.

I know that when I speak about Buddhism that I am just speaking about the surface of it. But I also feel that I have Buddha's permission to do so. There has been things about Buddhism that has caught my spontaneous curiosity, one it some of the things that Buddha has said, one in particular is

Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world. - Buddha

Well if that is so then all we can really see is the surface of the egg shell, from the inside and maybe any crack that might be appearing and what better place to look than the place that I know the best, that is in my life as it unfolds and in the world around me.

Having said that I am also sensitive to the idea that I will have blind spots and sometimes I can get to know more about them by looking at others, even if it is just the surface of others.
I'll give an example of that which I saw thanks to you. I took an interest for some unknown reason at that Shantideva guy who you like. A very surface look and since there is only one book attributed to him I didn't have to look very far. One of the parts of his writing was titled 'confessions of errors' and being a Catholic I always like a good confession and so I went looking for what he did that that was such an error, such a sin. I saw that he was saying that he was a sinner who had and was committing all kinds of sins. I wanted details. Did he fuck a pig and then not call or write? Details I wanted but I had problems finding then even though he seemed to be saying that they were there. 404 to be precise. I was trying to look at it like a Buddhist and I couldn't find any sins. Then I looked at it like a catholic alter boy and all of a sudden they popped out everywhere. He was telling of all the gods and magical objects he worshipped, how he burned incense to all the gods that we catholic children are told is idoletry. He even went so far to confess that he thought that women would be happier to be men. To me these weren't things that he was preaching, they were things that he was confessing. Then I considered if he was saying these things in a roomful of people who do those things all the time as part of their belief system then they would never see that he was confessing. It would be in their blind spot.
Then I thought if it is true of them then it is probably true of us and that has led me to all kinds of interesting thoughts.

Anyway Daka I thought I would mention these things so that you get a feel for how my brain works and to know the limits to how far I can go in a particular direction, As far as the surface, but I also think it is the same surface that Buddha saw when we said the above. Only now the crack is bigger than when he saw it.

Turn up the music
Pour out the wine
Stop at the surface
The surface is fine
We don't need to go any deeper
Leonard Cohen

[lazariuk]

Also, since he has no skill in the art of rhetoric or poetry,

See Daka I have a problem with commentary. In the original the word poetry is not mentioned. Things get changed with commentary.

Over in the LC newsgroup we have been speaking a bit about the line
"when they said repent, I wonder what they meant" and we are finding out that there are a lot of different views about where the word came from and what it's original meaning was. Not only us but we found out that language experts around the world are also at a loss to know the origin of the word for sure.

I was looking through the Bible yesterday trying to see how this began according to the Bible and noticed that it wasn't the snake, though he has been getting all the blame.

In the Bible the Boss is attributed as saying "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat"

then later the snake is talking to Eve and asks her about what she can eat and she tells him that the Boss said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, neither shall you touch it"

When I saw that I thought "Hey that's not what the Boss said" she added some and I thought that I guess that Eve started with the lies before the snake and that maybe the original sin began long before eating the fruit and there is also the issue that the Boss gave these orders before Eve was even pulled from the rib of Adam and so it might have been something that Adam told her and maybe he was the one who changed the original words.
Anyway I think there is something to that part of the story but I have never seen it discussed, but I do get uncomfortable with people changing words. I am especially suspicious of someone changing the words of what Shantideva wrote because I have reason to think that he had composed the entire work in his mind long before he ever spoke it and that he had a very specific reason for every word that might not be apparent to those doing the editing.
In Leonard's Book of Mercy he used the expression of "Talking to Eternity" and it sounds like he is grateful for being able to do so. Shantideva's work to me seemed also like such a talking and I think it would serve well to leave it be as it is. Even if the people now in that tradition are starting to feel that it sounds too much like a confession of attitudes that they no longer feel are justified. If the man wants to confess let him confess.

[Cate]

Can I make a crack at another possible crack?

Jack, you mentioned earlier about all of us waking as something we have in common. (I might be paraphrasing wrong I can't find the quote now )

I think that consciousness (self realization) itself might be a crack, with the light being knowledge.

I don't know if self realization is a reality. I looked for myself and never found anything.
Now I think that whole idea of finding your self is just some story and can never happen. Just a waste of time. Awareness is awareness of otherness. No otherness - no awareness= no life.
I think the same can be said about loving yourself.

The quote that you couldn't find is " The crack in everything that lets in the light is what the waking have in common"

I guess what I was looking at is that part of us that asks if we're real? The fact that we are sentient beings capable of questioning the universe (although I have to admit our questions are probably pretty flimsy)

[lazariuk]

I guess what I was looking at is that part of us that asks if we're real?

That is a very kind thing that people give to one another - confirmation. It's probably one of those things that we get to the extent that we give it.

[daka]

Happy Sunday Jack

Sounds like you are 'qualified' for communion today!!!!

I don't know if self realization is a reality. I looked for myself and never found anything.

Like Leonard says, you could stop there, Jack

Someone once asked a holy being to explain the essence of Buddha's 84000 teachings in as few words as possible. he thought for a few moments and said:
"NO SELF / NO PROBLEM"

I think you already have what is called the meditation object that can blast you through the eggshell. You only need to stay with it, deepen it, until you fully 'experience' it directly, or in Buddhist lingo 'realize' it 'directly'. This is the door to 'liberation'. This is what is called 'ultimate truth'. Pretty good going for a guy with ADD who is not even a Buddhist. 'Buddhism' is not important. Buddhists are not important. Realizations are important. This is the big one, the big crack, I 'believe'. (And I think, to be precise this would be called a 'correct belief'.. not to be confused with 'faith'!)

It is the 'absence'... it is the not-finding... that is the object.... the crack. This is the big metaphysical crack. It exists also in the physical world and is helpful also to see. For example, when you think of my 'body' a singular object appears to your mind and you apply adjectives to it... handsome, small, beautiful, skinny etc. etc. Look at the individual parts of your body one by one.. is my head the body?.. no.. let it drift off into space... is my arm the body?.. no.. let it drift off into space... is my torso my body?... no..... etc. soon you will be left with only empty space... this 'empty'.... as with the self, is the true nature of the phenomenon 'body'. This process applies to all phenomena. Nothing exists truly (inherently), or in the way that it appears. Moment by moment our mind is mistakenly attributing 'true' existence incorrectly to all phenomena! And this is a hard nut to 'crack'!!

You need go no further, as Leonard says! BUT this realization needs to be deepened 'experienced' according to Jack, realized experientially. Actually this is why people climb mountains and hang out in caves alone for a long time. It is quite difficult (not impossible) to deepen this in the conventional world where the opposite view is sold constantly. You have got to be very careful with this because, as you can imagine it challenges people greatly. Imagine you get this realization deeply and go back to the wife and pass on the good news that you don't really exist way she thinks you do... you need to do this very carefully, and very skilfully, at her pace, and only if she is interested. Then maybe talk about the way in which she and the kids 'truly' exist!... as mere appearances to the mind of an ADD!

When Roshi said to Leonard "I not Japanese, you not Jewish" he was teaching this.
When Leonard said that Roshi loved him for who he wasn't this allowed who he was to disappear (an emptiness) and he became very happy. I look at Leonard in old documentaries and new documentaries and I see two Leonards, an unrealized one and a realized one. It is tempting to think that he is just getting old, mellowing with age, but I do not 'believe' this for a minute. he has been looking at this crack for thirty years, hanging out with Roshi for a few months a year for thirty years, five years living with Roshi. Roshi's job description is to help people see (and experience), and realize that crack. I can't think of what else would be listed in his hypothetical job description.

I love the chick and the egg analogy, Jack! And it is true for ordinary beings. The existence of ordinary beings implies the existence of extraordinary beings. For them, they make the cracks, find the biggest one.. make it bigger and break out of the eggshell. They then see all the cracks, flying around, and they see all the other egg shells and cracks. And they are really happy to be flying. And they can go back! ..... if they really want to... to show the cracks to all the other trapped chicks... they then pretend that they are ordinary chicks because the other chicks can only relate to ordinary chicks, until they can break out and fly too.

I don't know the context of that eggshell analogy given by Buddha. I highly doubt that he was encouraging people to accept the fate of the trapped chick who cannot see beyond the shell! Especially since he was out of the shell. I believe he was mainly trying to help all of humanity get to the place he had discovered, out of the shell. How kind!

If anyone can break out of that eggshell, Jack it is you!!

daka

[daka]

Hi Jack
again

I asked Cate's permission to refer to two questions that she posed to me (PM), for the benefit of our investigation of 'beliefs' etc, and she said this was OK.

Hi Cate

I apologize for dragging the thread into the complexities of Buddhist Psychology. I am doing so principally because Jack has entered the realm of discussion of 'Beliefs' and in order to meet him on that theme I have to relate to the framework of Buddhist Psychology. I hope this does not bother people. Although I have been studying this for years I am still a long way from having it down pat and this forum has forced me to learn more than I expected, myself.

Re your questions

1) non-valid cognizer

do you mean that it cannot be proven scientifically?

Not exactly, but close. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says that "Non-valid cognizers are called 'deceptive' because they are not perfect knowledge, and so are unreliable.

That means that although the 'belief' may be correct or right or accurate, it is unreliable because it has not been cognized deeply or accurately enough to be 'relied on' ... or in western lingo, you can't take it to the bank (the wisdom bank) or can't bet your life on it! That type of 'perfect knowledge' comes from what jack refers to as an 'experience' or in Buddhist terms a realization of the belief, more personal, evidential, experiential, and powerful and reliable. I think this Buddhist clarification of beliefs supports Jack's personal view on 'beliefs'. They are necessary and very useful but only powerful and reliable if they are experienced in a rather direct fashion. This is actually what meditation is all about: taking correct beliefs, contemplating them, analyzing them from all perspectives, and eventually realizing them. Then they eventually become what is called a 'valid cognizer'.

2) - It’s not the right or wrong that matters because there isn’t exactly a right or wrong, it’s how you process the question – your state of mind in visualizing the belief?-

right or wrong / correct / incorrect might be better... avoiding the morality issue completely

Correct or incorrect (right or wrong) does matter greatly with respect to the question of whether there are or are not future lives. Both cannot be true and this has a huge impact on our present life, whether we believe this or not!. Geshe Kelsang says that - A mind that believes that future lives do not exist is not a correct belief but an incorrect belief because it is a wrong conceptual mind. ... again I think 'incorrect might be helpful here with respect to the ultimate truth of the question... yes/no to future lives. Maybe you can find an example in your life when you had a 'wrong conceptual mind'? I remember believing that drinking alcohol was not a problem in my life. Eventually I had a realization one day that my life was a complete mess only because of alcohol! Therefore for years I held to an incorrect belief about my drinking (that I had it under control)... until the realization happened, experiential, (others had tried for many years to shift my incorrect belief, unsuccessfully)! So my belief that I had my drinking under control was a wrong conceptual mind.

Generally, Jack, I think we have a similar view regarding beliefs. What think ye?

daka

PS the way you describe your reaction to the logic of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso reminds me of the way I respond to your mathematical explanations. I also have had a similar reaction to the logic of Geshe Kelsang for 14 years, but I keep at it. It is especially difficult when the 'emptiness' crack is discussed in great detail. Shantideva devote a whole chapter to 'wisdom'... the big crack.

Maybe be a little careful with your view that the translation that you found is more valid.... I am not so sure...

There is also a translation of the work by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso that is not a commentary but a 'Poem':

Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life
(A Buddhist Poem For Today)
by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

If you PM me with your mailing address I will amazon a copy to you as a gift. It looks like Leonard's Book of Longing with very beautiful drawings all over the place. I suspect that this version will be most 'authentic' for your purposes and also most enjoyable as it is a long beautiful and profound poem. (NO COMMENTARY... NO INTERPRETATION.... apart from the translation process itself)

[Manna]

You need go no further, as Leonard says! BUT this realization needs to be deepened 'experienced' according to Jack, realized experientially. Actually this is why people climb mountains and hang out in caves alone for a long time. It is quite difficult (not impossible) to deepen this in the conventional world where the opposite view is sold constantly.

Is it a paradox? Maybe a joke? You have to limit your experience in order to experience experiences about experiencing. All you need to do is experience that you don't have to experience and then you can get back to experiencing heightened experiences. Great. Got it. Meanwhile, the ones I love will have the experience of a lack of experiencing me in their experiences.

Experience me, baby.

Just in case anyone wants to know about pi...

It is the distance of the circumference of a circle divided by the distance of its [smaller in Jack's 2-fold math world] radius. If I remember properly. And if not, please drop another stone into a bottomless well for me, and watch it darken until you can no longer see it.

Oh, nevermind, that's just a fah shah of pi for me, and maybe me alone.

Jack, or anyone, do you think the universe is finite?
Do you think the word universes should be banned?