Private Codex Enlightenment

"The so-called wise people have always preferred to believe the lies they have created than accept the truths discovered by others."

Photography 丨 Xie Danru

Author 丨 Xie Danru

Source 丨 Last Meter of Sunshine

1.

There is often a feeling that I am startled by the sudden thought.

The ridiculous conjectures and delusions that come to mind from time to time: I think people are very sad, pitiful.

We may not end up losing at the hands of profit, but we are also burdened by our own desires and needs.

"The wise do not fall in love." I pondered this sentence over and over again.

What is love after all? I used to think of it as a desire and a need, to think of it from another angle, that is to say, I saw it as a combination of instinct and blindness.

Instinct is because "this nature is not one", and blindness further allows "non-one", that is, incomplete, unable to be seen comprehensively and objectively, and then we turn a blind eye to this choice.

Then I thought—what was my basis for concluding that "people are miserable and pitiful?".

My instinctive intuition tells me that it is desire. It is precisely because it is impossible to face life itself and man itself, so it is not comprehensive. Then we internalize and rationalize in the depths of our consciousness because of our needs, whether fear or security, and then exclude those that are not conducive to our thinking and reality itself. What's behind that? Pride and prejudice, deep-seated arrogance and self-righteous prejudice. To put it bluntly, it fell on instinct again.

Why don't I agree that we are not defeated at the hands of interests? In the final analysis, I think of the one who said, "The world is bustling, all for profit, and the world is bustling, all is for profit." Man, did he essentially make the same mistake as I did when he said this? Whether it is desire or interest, are we really so objective when we look at it? Can we transcend our instincts and disregard the true heart, deceive ourselves, as if we have a plan, as if we have a favorable argument? Or, on the contrary, it is precisely because we follow the heart that we first choose an answer that corresponds to the true thoughts of the heart—to reduce what we think is unfavorable to universal, instinctive, selfish.

I think this kind of thinking is not shallow, as if to say, we all live for profit, so we can live for profit, or even should, and then we can be selfish without scruples. Then, for the same reason, selflessness has the name of "love," selflessness and greatness.

And the wise? He is not in love... Does it mean, then, that the wise are, by their very nature, purely egoistic? Whether it is cognition, need, or desire, they always seem to be able to find the right measure, to always grasp themselves, as if rational and sober, so comfortable.

If so, it seems quite appropriate - let everyone not feel uncomfortable, but there is still some vague admiration. After all, no one can do it, only a very few people can become wise. Therefore, his "name and truth" are naturally superior.

If so, is this wise man also rather miserable and pitiful? Or in other words, the existence of the wise man itself is likely to be the need of many people? Think about God's needs, does God have a place as God because of his existence? Even God is like this, but what about the wise? What about the saints?

These, in the final analysis, are all a kind of need!

"Because they don't know the truth, they don't want to know the truth, and they can't understand the truth, but it exists, and then all these differences are reduced to something else, deification, alienation." Such love, such greatness, but all wise people are difficult to accept after all! If you believe in these things for the sake of these things, and make a name and a small profit, who is rare?"

Therefore, the wise man does not fall in love because this love is vain and is not the love that the wise man approves of from beginning to end! The love of others, because of the needs of others themselves and then give love, chasing such love, is indeed stupid!

Because, in the end, the love of others can be taken back at any time!

2.

Some time ago, I saw people on a certain platform mentioning "enlightenment."

I tried to sort out my body sensation and combined some personal preferences to make the following answer:

Regarding enlightenment, of course, it can be said that there are some popular and practical things. That is an open way of thinking for specific analysis of specific problems, as if returning to the state of mind when people were just born, and it is like "looking at mountains is mountains, seeing water is water, then looking at mountains is not mountains, seeing water is not water, and finally seeing mountains is still mountains, seeing water is still water." Such a process to the state or state of the result. In the final analysis, "it varies from person to person depending on time and place to place.".

"We must remember that man's understanding of the primacy of things in nature, such as what is important and what is not, is based on a certain false wisdom, a misunderstanding of our view of the things of nature as things unique to man. The so-called superiors and inferiors do not actually exist in nature, and there is no dominant or subordinate relationship, and we are only happy to impose the hierarchical ideas in our minds on natural phenomena, not to look at the truth independently, not to consider their true connection, but to classify them rigidly according to their usefulness to human beings, or according to what kind of pleasure they can bring us. As everyone knows, in the chain of life, every link is equally important.

As it turns out, they are indispensable. Visually there is the principle of near and far, far and small, and we feel that something is "small", perhaps because it is too far away from it, or we simply do not know how to correctly judge its value.

For arrogant humans, the cytoplasm of the simplest microbes is enough for us to study for a while, what reason do we have to accuse something of insignificance? In bacteriology, it seems that knowledge of infectious bacteria is the most important, followed by harmless microorganisms, which are found in large quantities in biological tissues in a state of decay and decomposition. However, if these so-called inferior fungi, whose task is to break down some of the organic matter in the tissues of higher plants and animals, and return them to the great cycle of matter, humans will also disappear from the planet."

It also concludes interestingly— "There is never a nuance that is not worth the labor of a wise man, only a researcher whose intellect is not sufficient to thoroughly penetrate the tiny world."

I don't know which book looks like this, just such a big paragraph, it's very interesting. If you are interested, you can look for it.

I say this because you probably haven't seen it (and I don't know if you've seen it).

And why can't I say it after I've seen it? Because I didn't remember, or why should I remember? - What is the source, who wrote what, does it matter? If you are not cooperating with the other party or wanting to commercialize this part of the content, what does it have to do with who the other party is, what kind of words are said, what kind of truths are spoken or what kind of reality is exposed? ...... For reference only.

In the end, we have to go back to the level of seeking truth from facts, right?

To put it bluntly, you don't understand it, you don't understand it, you understand it, it is likely that you think you understand, why? Just say it, what about it? You just understand a little bit of what other people say and think about yourself, but what else? More critically, what happens next? Ever-changing, who can predict?

However, this does not prevent you from finding what you are looking for. This is not purposefulness, purposefulness is difficult to last, or it is short-lived. Because after you have achieved your goal, you may be satisfied, and the scenery behind you will have nothing to do with you. And if you approve of something from the bottom of your heart, it's different.

To borrow a phrase that I've seen recently, it's —

"To be fair, people don't actually solve any problems completely, they are all caused by various problems." 」

Where are the keywords? "Thoroughly". In fact, the problem of people is precisely that they are not thorough enough. Reflecting on your own behavior, how many habits have you really implemented and maintained? That is to say, those other than those that are necessary and that require learning and constant improvement of instincts.

And then what? To paraphrase a somewhat absurd but perhaps closer to the truth — "The wise have always preferred to believe the lies they have created rather than accept the truths discovered by others."

Don't think about it, the key point here is to "discover and create for yourself", not to say that you can't find it or that what others say is the truth. In fact, truth has nothing to do with who says it, how it says it, or what it is expressed in (truth should be based on the truth itself, not on anything else). More importantly, if it has nothing to do with you, then – what's the matter with you?

For a simple example, the most classic sentence: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

What's the other way around? If the value of life is not worth a life is decided by others, then what is the point of life? This is just to say that you can try it, and it can be used as a reference.

What is wisdom to put it bluntly? - A combination of openness and flexibility. In other words, the unity of possibilities and limitations. A more specific point is that after the unification of contradictions, you know how to choose.

So, how do you still feel enlightened or not? The key is who you want to be and how you want to be. Otherwise, there will always be all kinds of noises interfering with you. "Don't lose your dreams without applause."

Finally, send Jun a word:

"Any academic theory that lacks attention to reality is a mirage of ideals – even though dreams and hopes are our spiritual pillars. We need to explain reality in line with reality, not a mockery that deviates from reality."

At this point, "I'm glad you read it." If you don't understand it, forget about it."