The Debate of God.

[Thief]

isn't that the point of losing yourself? to be able to see and understand multiple perspectives?

You don't need to lose your mind, as you roll a diamond about in your hand.
The multiple facets make it pretty.
The many ways to look at it make it valuable.

 

[idea]

You don't need to lose your mind, as you roll a diamond about in your hand.
The multiple facets make it pretty.
The many ways to look at it make it valuable.

strange, that there should be so many different ways to look at the same thing.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But the problem with this is that the premise there is no self to have a "you" has already been asserted. If this is the case then the self must be able to simultaneously identify the snake and the rope. For while some exist in a state of Maya and some have realized enlightenment, some will see the world from the perspective of the duality and others from the perspective of the Authentic self. Consequently those perceiving the world from the authentic self must necessarily see multiple perspectives.

Hi, Curious. Although your words make me dizzy if I try to follow them too closely with my rational mind, I'll make a remark which may or may not have anything at all to do with the discussion.

From very early in my adulthood, I've noticed a difference between myself and most other people, which is an ability to separate myself from myself. Everyone can do that, of course, but for me it seemed just natural, a thing I didn't have control over. My best friend once implied that I might be psychotic -- simply because I spoke of myself distantly at times, as if I were watching myself as just another character in the play.

Later, as a businessman, I remember thinking how lucky I was to be that way, because I could put myself into different scenarios and run them out into the future. If AmbigGuy does this, then the world is likely to do that, and then AmbigGuy can react like so, etc....

I don't know if this means anything or is relevant, but I thought I'd say it.

It's not why I claimed Enlightenment and non-Enlightment simultaneously, by the way. I'm way out of my depth as a Buddhist theologian.

Or non-theologian... whatever they call their thinkers and talkers.

 

[godnotgod]

A
You are telling me that you don't have to make a personal judgment about the other guy's mind. You can simply see his state of mind. It's the same thing a Sharia judge does every day in some Muslim countries, yes?

The same Christian fundies I was referring to were discussing a certain 'Mary' one day at Denny's. Seems this Mary was a lukewarm Christian, in their estimation. I had been sitting quietly reading a book across from them, listening in and out of the conversation. By the time they were through, they had decided in all seriousness, that Mary was to be stood up against a wall and machine-gunned to death. They then high-fived each other in mutual congratulations and ordered cheeseburgers, fries, and shakes to top off their session.

Gee. I wonder what state of mind they might have been in. Hmmmmm? Haven't a clue....

To make an observation as to their state of mind is one thing. To pass moral judgement on them is another. I am not passing moral judgment on them.

I am making an observation about their behavior in exactly the same manner as you when you referred to knowing when others were fooling themselves. Why is your conclusion without judgement and more valid than mine?

 

[godnotgod]

But the problem with this is that the premise there is no self to have a "you" has already been asserted. If this is the case then the self must be able to simultaneously identify the snake and the rope. For while some exist in a state of Maya and some have realized enlightenment, some will see the world from the perspective of the duality and others from the perspective of the Authentic self. Consequently those perceiving the world from the authentic self must necessarily see multiple perspectives.

I'm sorry, but I can't make much of this convoluted and tortuous argument.

Perhaps it would help if you were to re-think and re-phrase.

To be enlightened is not to be unenlightened, but the 'unenlightened' state is recognized as a condition of pretense, meaning that everyone is already enlightened, only that some are deciding to remain in the state of maya to continue acting out the drama their false character demands, but which they have taken so seriously as to have tricked themselves into believing it to be real. In effect, no one is unenlightened; it is just that some are asleep and only need to re-awaken to the reality of the enlightened state.

I suspect the problem in communication has to do with what you think the Authentic Self is. The consciousness of the Authentic Self is non-local. It is not 'my' consciousness. It is impersonal and universal, just as the ocean is impersonal and universal to the wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good advice, but in the real world which I inhabit, that would be impossible. I am changing myself every day of my life. If I waited until I was 'changed', it would be too late to try to change the world.

That's fine, your definition of what is 'real' is different though. There is great irony behind the real changeless peace that passes understanding, fwiw here are just a few observations.

The 'real' to my understanding is changeless, the 'unreal' is the ever changing temporary transitional moments of time/space movement,..i.e. maya!

Iow, if something is really real, it doesn 't change....ever, otoh if something changes, than the reality that something was no longer is and therefore was not really real to begin with.

The one indivisible changeless reality depends on eternal change of its differentiated aspects for its stasis.

The Tao that is spoken of is not the eternal changeless Tao.
From the eternal changeless Tao comes the one, the Tao that involves changes.
From the one comes the two. the ying and the yang.
From the two come the three, from the three the ten, from the ten the ten thousand things (infinity).

When 'I' am at peace, it is because my life is in balance, nothing lacking, nothing in excess.
When 'I' am activity, it is because something missing is being sought, or an attempt is being made to avoid something not wanted.

When 'I' am at peace, there is tremendous movement of internal forces in a harmonious 'dance' that maintains the stasis of the whole.

Aummmm...

[youtube]0PJx8PE_GVM[/youtube]
Chanting OM

 

[godnotgod]

...I could put myself into different scenarios and run them out into the future. If AmbigGuy does this, then the world is likely to do that, and then AmbigGuy can react like so, etc....

In other words, you are operating under the impression that there is a separate self called 'AmbigGuy' that acts upon the world.

The enlightened view is that:

"you are something the whole universe is doing, in the same way that a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing"

[youtube]bX8D0yU0pMc[/youtube]
Alan Watts - you are god in the dance of life - YouTube

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here is where the problem lies:

If the realization of enlightenment destroys the concept of self then so too would it destroy the concept of enlightenment.

The realization of enlightenment doesn't destroy anything, nor does it create anything, it just means that the reality is directly present, not the mental conceptual representation. When conceptualizations don't arise in the mind, then ego ceases to exist. Ego is merely a concept to represent the thinking entity.

Reality is forever on the other side of words and concepts that are meant to represent reality.

The ordinary man perceives reality through mental conceptualization, the adept's mind is in a state of quiescence and thus free from all such thought processes, hence there is direct apprehension/integration of sage and reality,..the apparent two become one,..union...yoga..the peace that passeth understanding.

 

[Curious George]

The realization of enlightenment doesn't destroy anything, nor does it create anything, it just means that the reality is directly present, not the mental conceptual representation. When conceptualizations don't arise in the mind, then ego ceases to exist. Ego is merely a concept to represent the thinking entity.

Reality is forever on the other side of words and concepts that are meant to represent reality.

The ordinary man perceives reality through mental conceptualization, the adept's mind is in a state of quiescence and thus free from all such thought processes, hence there is direct apprehension/integration of sage and reality,..the apparent two become one,..union...yoga..the peace that passeth understanding.

but you cannot speak toward the "apparent two becoming one" and still maintain the oneness from another perspective. Doing so maintains a concept of self. If the adept's perspective is distinguished from the ordinary man, then the adept retains a "self." To integrate the two to any real union you would have to eliminate the concept of enlightenment as well. Thus from this philosophy you have acknowledged, Ambiguous was more precise in describing enlightenment.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's fine, your definition of what is 'real' is different though. There is great irony behind the real changeless peace that passes understanding, fwiw here are just a few observations.

The 'real' to my understanding is changeless, the 'unreal' is the ever changing temporary transitional moments of time/space movement,..i.e. maya!

Iow, if something is really real, it doesn 't change....ever, otoh if something changes, than the reality that something was no longer is and therefore was not really real to begin with.

The one indivisible changeless reality depends on eternal change of its differentiated aspects for its stasis.

The Tao that is spoken of is not the eternal changeless Tao.
From the eternal changeless Tao comes the one, the Tao that involves changes.
From the one comes the two. the ying and the yang.
From the two come the three, from the three the ten, from the ten the ten thousand things (infinity).

When 'I' am at peace, it is because my life is in balance, nothing lacking, nothing in excess.
When 'I' am activity, it is because something missing is being sought, or an attempt is being made to avoid something not wanted.

When 'I' am at peace, there is tremendous movement of internal forces in a harmonious 'dance' that maintains the stasis of the whole.

Aummmm...

I'm happy that you're happy, even while disagreeing with your words.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

but you cannot speak toward the "apparent two becoming one" and still maintain the oneness from another perspective. Doing so maintains a concept of self. If the adept's perspective is distinguished from the ordinary man, then the adept retains a "self." To integrate the two to any real union you would have to eliminate the concept of enlightenment as well. Thus from this philosophy you have acknowledged, Ambiguous was more precise in describing enlightenment.

The apparent two are in fact one in reality, the word 'apparent' was there for you to understand that it is not really two, just the perception of the mortal mind that divides the oneness into two, i.e. subject - object.

There is no point in my trying to convey the mystical underlying unity of the 'apparent' multiplicity to those who can't understand what is being said to them.

In truth there is this irony, this mystical unity can't be described in words, the best that can be done is to use words and concepts to explain that 'reality' is forever on the other side of words and concepts.

Once the aspirant can understand that 'truth'/'reality'/'god'/'nirvana'/'tao'/etc., can never ever be understood by a mind that uses the subject - object dualistic mind approach, they are then at least in a position to cease wasting their life on an impossible quest.

That is not to say that 'enlightenment' is not possible, just that it is not possible for a mind that uses mind that divides the one reality into subject and object.

For this reason it is said that the true teaching is that there can be no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is no true teaching is the true teaching.

You either understand or you do not understand what is being said to you, your responses reveal that you do not yet understand, but don't be offended as that is to be expected since the pre-requisite state of a still mind (dhyana) to apprehend the undivided reality has not yet been realized.

So please do understand that there is really little else that can be said by me on this matter, go your way and all the best on your quest. :namaste

 

[Curious George]

The apparent two are in fact one in reality, the word 'apparent' was there for you to understand that it is not really two, just the perception of the mortal mind that divides the oneness into two, i.e. subject - object.

There is no point in my trying to convey the mystical underlying unity of the 'apparent' multiplicity to those who can't understand what is being said to them.

For this reason it is said that the true teaching is that there can be no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is no true teaching is the true teaching.

You either understand or you do not understand what is being said to you, your responses reveal that you do not yet understand, but don't be offended as that is to be expected since the pre-requisite state of a still mind (dhyana) to apprehend the undivided reality has not yet been realized.

So please do understand that there is really little else that can be said by me on this matter, go your way and all the best on your quest. :namaste

perhaps, misunderstanding has always been a forte of mine.

But the suggestion now laid out is that

In truth there is this irony, this mystical unity can't be described in words, the best that can be done is to use words and concepts to explain that 'reality' is forever on the other side of words and concepts.

Once the aspirant can understand that 'truth'/'reality'/'god'/'nirvana'/'tao'/etc., can never ever be understood by a mind that uses the subject - object dualistic mind approach, they are then at least in a position to cease wasting their life on an impossible quest.

while I understand that

That is not to say that 'enlightenment' is not possible, just that it is not possible for a mind that uses mind that divides the one reality into subject and object.

The conception of enlightenment spoken of here fits the Ambiguous' description far more than any others. might there be a tendency for individuals struggling against a duality to resist others because they perceive them to be within the same duality. Now, consider that Ambiguous is part of yourself simply trying to relieve that part of himself from the illusion of Maya. No thanks necessary. Were one hand to remove another from the hold of a lion, the one hand would surely not owe the other thanks.

Ultimately, our reluctance, debate, and struggle are just another piece to a necessary cycle.

Consider though- that the philosophy is understood far better- or not at all. Either path will not aid in the struggle.

Cheers

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Were one hand to remove another from the hold of a lion, the one hand would surely not owe the other thanks.

Ultimately, our reluctance, debate, and struggle are just another piece to a necessary cycle.
Cheers

Yes friend, beyond the sway of maya (dualistic mind)), superior virtue does not know virtue, but inferior virtue must yet still practice virtue...

And yes, the struggle is an essential piece of the obligatory cosmic pilgrimage through the cycle of necessity, but this subject ventures into arcane doctrines,...suffice to say that 'enlightenment' is ultimately realized by all 'apparent' separate sentient beings.

 

[godnotgod]

....'enlightenment' is ultimately realized by all 'apparent' separate sentient beings.

"You should know that as far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it and the other is ignorant of it."

A Buddhist Bible: Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch: Chapter II. Discourse on Prajna

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"You should know that as far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it and the other is ignorant of it."

A Buddhist Bible: Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch: Chapter II. Discourse on Prajna

Yes, have read this and understand, it is also said by Bodhidharma that a Buddha doesn't even know they are a Buddha, it's just a label that the unenlightened conceptual mind created to represent an entity who appears to be... hmmm...well...enlightened!....

That's why it isn't fruitful to say much more on this subject other than pointing out the irony that conceptual reality obscures the actual reality it is meant to represent, for otherwise discussions will always get bogged own in conceptual minefields of misunderstanding.

 

[Thief]

but you cannot speak toward the "apparent two becoming one" and still maintain the oneness from another perspective. Doing so maintains a concept of self. If the adept's perspective is distinguished from the ordinary man, then the adept retains a "self." To integrate the two to any real union you would have to eliminate the concept of enlightenment as well. Thus from this philosophy you have acknowledged, Ambiguous was more precise in describing enlightenment.

I agree.

Perhaps the discussion can be enhanced by deciding if God has anything to say?

Would He testify that any of us are enlightened?

It would also help to consider superlatives.
The spoken word enlightenment implies an achievement.....
an improvement in the spirit of Man.

Rather hard to distinguish that improvement without speaking of it.
And would it not be best to hear it from God?

 

[godnotgod]

I agree.

Perhaps the discussion can be enhanced by deciding if God has anything to say?

Would He testify that any of us are enlightened?

It would also help to consider superlatives.
The spoken word enlightenment implies an achievement.....
an improvement in the spirit of Man.

Rather hard to distinguish that improvement without speaking of it.
And would it not be best to hear it from God?

Shhhh!.....Listen!.......Hear that?......

....pondfrogleapsplash!:yes:

 

[Thief]

Shhhh!.....Listen!.......Hear that?......

....pondfrogleapsplash!:yes:

Are 'you' talking to 'me'?

 

[godnotgod]

Are 'you' talking to 'me'?

Shhhhhh!.....IT'S talking to you!

 

[Thief]

Shhhhhh!.....IT'S talking to you!

Yeah well....if there is no 'me' to perceive it....does it exist?