The Debate of God.

[AmbiguousGuy]

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 wasn't thinking about moral judgment on your part, but I will happily declare that I pass moral judgment on everyone around me. Actually I consider it a moral obligation to pass moral judgment. But maybe I misunderstood when you claimed that you weren't making a judgment about their mental state but rather observing their mental state as it existed. You were talking about a moral judgment?

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?

My conclusion is indeed a judgment. And it's no more valid than your conclusion unless I can out-argue you in front of another human mind -- the only place I believe conclusions can be judged as more or less valid than other conclusions.

As for making observations in exactly the same manner as I do, I don't believe that's true, but we can test it. I call it my Is-It-Possible Test. I'll go first:

I, AmbigGuy, hereby declare and assert that I could be dead wrong in my observations of the human mind often fooling itself. I was only expressing my fallible, personal opinion about that. Objective reality may yet disagree with me. Humans minds may never fool themselves.

Now you. Can you say the same thing about your claim that "it becomes painfully clear that it is their ego talking; that they make such claims [about experiencing the arm of Jesus, etc.] as a way of appearing wise and 'chosen' to others."

If you tell me that you could be dead wrong about your observations -- that those Christians may have been as egoless as you yourself or as the average Buddhist aspirant -- I'll gladly agree that we are making observations in the same way.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Sure. That's the only conclusion I can reach while retaining my sanity. Everyone else in the world seems to have reached the same conclusion, at least in practice. The begging monk pushes his own personal food pail forward to be filled.

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"

Once upon a time, I asked a man what 'faith' means. He replied that faith is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

I feel the same way about your definition of 'you' as I did about his definition of 'faith'. It's incoherent to my rational mind, and although I am a sometime poet myself, I am not here to trade poetry with you.

Anyway, if you want to adhere to mainstream Buddhist/Enlightenment doctrine, that's what you want. For myself, I shudder at the thought of adopting another man's theology. So I am free to become Enlightened in whatever manner seems most right to me.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
"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.

I would like to point out two things here:

One is that, as far as I can see, we both seem to be seeing the same truth, which is basically that the true nature of reality lies beyond conceptual thought, and secondly, that it is the same reality, which is impersonal and universal, that anyone can see. You can corroborate what I see about it independently of my experience, and vice versa, all without referring to factual evidence.

Both of these observations are what I have been saying here all along.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, of course, so your input/modification/extrapolation/ of the above would be appreciated.

 

[godnotgod]

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

There is no 'you' to perceive it; no 'perceiver' of the percepion; there is only perception itself.

In the spontaneous event of 'pondfrogleapsplash', what is ordinarily thought of as subject and object are experienced for what they actually already are: one event. It is only the discriminating mind that creates the illusion of a self called "I" that is separate from the world. When this discriminating mind has it's guard down, the true nature of reality can sometimes be seen. Sometimes it is only for a brief glimpse. But through concerted effort, the thinking mind can be subdued so that one can experience longer periods of exposure.

"True nature of reality" can also be transposed for 'God'; the Absolute; etc, wherein what is referred to as divine union is achieved, in which it is realized that there has never been a separation from God. If no separation has ever been the case, then no 'return' to God is possible.

 

[godnotgod]

I wasn't thinking about moral judgment on your part, but I will happily declare that I pass moral judgment on everyone around me. Actually I consider it a moral obligation to pass moral judgment. But maybe I misunderstood when you claimed that you weren't making a judgment about their mental state but rather observing their mental state as it existed. You were talking about a moral judgment?

Here is what you originally stated:

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?

You are comparing my observations about others to what religious authorities do. That is about judgements based on morality. A moral judgement comes after observation, and is the outcome of adherence to some religious or moral code or doctrine.

Psychologists/psychiatrists, for example, observe behavior without passing judgment on the individual. They are able to do so because they have trained their minds to eliminate judgmental thought. That is the method of science, for the most part.


A judgment about the behavior of others might take the form of: "Those gang members are just plain evil!", while an observation might be something like: "Gang activity is an outgrowth of society itself."

 

[godnotgod]

... I am free to become Enlightened in whatever manner seems most right to me.

So you see Enlightenment as a personal view, rather than to see things as they are, regardless of any personal view?

I get a picture of your view as being one which says that 'everyone's personal view is valid, there being no such thing as a universal reality'.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it's just how I read and clarify your statement.

 

[Curious George]

So you see Enlightenment as a personal view, rather than to see things as they are, regardless of any personal view?

I get a picture of your view as being one which says that 'everyone's personal view is valid, there being no such thing as a universal reality'.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it's just how I read and clarify your statement.

Ooh I like this game: What is my personal view?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would like to point out two things here:

One is that, as far as I can see, we both seem to be seeing the same truth, which is basically that the true nature of reality lies beyond conceptual thought, and secondly, that it is the same reality, which is impersonal and universal, that anyone can see. You can corroborate what I see about it independently of my experience, and vice versa, all without referring to factual evidence.

Both of these observations are what I have been saying here all along.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, of course, so your input/modification/extrapolation/ of the above would be appreciated.

Yes godnotgod, it is so...

With reference to pure/not dual perception, there is this amusing mystical saying that goes something like...God (non-duality, true reality) can only reveal God to God through the medium of God, all else is vanity!

 

[godnotgod]

Ooh I like this game: What is my personal view?

Whatever it is that you attach to.

A mirror reflects everything it 'sees' but retains no image of any of it.

 

[Curious George]

Whatever it is that you attach to.

A mirror reflects everything it 'sees' but retains no image of any of it.

I always get the most esoteric fortune cookies!

 

[InfidelRiot]

Whatever it is that you attach to.

A mirror reflects everything it 'sees' but retains no image of any of it.

1. A mirror is not sentient.
2. Take a picture of a mirror reflecting something.

 

[Curious George]

whatever it is you attach to

Well I believe that I might have said something about my beliefs a hundred or so pages back, yet a closer source is the core belief thread, that is unfortunately falling down in the threads.

Here is my quote:

I believe with every passing moment we, through volitional acts, place a grain of sand on our Mandala of life.

We may not know how many grains we get, nor can we always control the color, shape and size. Yet eventually our Mandala will be done, and swept away. These, our most precious creations, are wholly unique.

Yet, each life, too, is a grain of sand in a larger Mandala of life. The individual life is no more illusion than this greater life.

And, though all our lives are destined to be swept away, our contribution does matter. There may be no living memory of us in 100 years, 1,000, years or 10,000; our lives in the span of time may be no more than a blink of a blink.

Still, when we reach out to another with compassion. It matters. It is no illusion. This may only be true for a mere moment; This may only be true from two perspectives. However, it is, nonetheless true.

 

[Curious George]

Whatever it is that you attach to.

A mirror reflects everything it 'sees' but retains no image of any of it.

You see, the ultimate problem with your philosophy is not the negation of logic, not the concept of enlightenment or the authentic self; the problem is not the integration of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, nor the allegory of the cave and the forms. The problem my friend is this concept of self. You have misled yourself to believing that the only existence Bhraman while wholly neglecting the Atman.

My friend, the undeniable fact is that somewhere in space and time you are typing on a keyboard. While we maybe connected, there is still a you in this equation. The dissolving of self is not the destruction of self. If you fool yourself into believing that their only exists a unity, then you fail to see the parts which connect to form that unity.

I cannot imagine this will be heard. But after reading hundreds of your posts and trying to obtain a full understanding of what you have written, perhaps I can gamble you will truly read one of mine. But if not- that is okay, as well.

fair well friend, I will check in to hear more of your words but I can only offer you silence and listening now.

 

[godnotgod]

1. A mirror is not sentient.
2. Take a picture of a mirror reflecting something.

Sentience is not the issue; A sentient mind can see with or without retention. Mirror is used only as a metaphor for the non-retentive mind. One that retains what it sees becomes a personal view. So we distinguish between 'my view', and 'the view'.

 

[godnotgod]

You see, the ultimate problem with your philosophy is not the negation of logic, not the concept of enlightenment or the authentic self; the problem is not the integration of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, nor the allegory of the cave and the forms. The problem my friend is this concept of self. You have misled yourself to believing that the only existence Bhraman while wholly neglecting the Atman.

My friend, the undeniable fact is that somewhere in space and time you are typing on a keyboard. While we maybe connected, there is still a you in this equation. The dissolving of self is not the destruction of self. If you fool yourself into believing that their only exists a unity, then you fail to see the parts which connect to form that unity.

I cannot imagine this will be heard. But after reading hundreds of your posts and trying to obtain a full understanding of what you have written, perhaps I can gamble you will truly read one of mine. But if not- that is okay, as well.

fair well friend, I will check in to hear more of your words but I can only offer you silence and listening now.

I do not deny that there is flowing water, but where is this thing we call 'river'?
It is not self that is dissolved; it is the idea of self, and the idea of self is a self-created principle. There is something that remains; something that is typing on a keyboard, but it is not an entity that can be pinpointed as "I", "Atman", or even "Anatman". It is neither "I", nor "not-I", because it is non-dual.
The' parts' that connect to form a unity do not, in reality, exist as separate parts; therefore, there is only unity. To see separate parts means that a concept of a separate self has been formed, wherein there is subject and object. All is conceptual thought.

"Atman" is to think of what "Atman" is. Reality as it exists is to see, without a single thought about what one is seeing. Reality has no abiding entity called "Atman" or "Not-Atman" in it. It is empty. There is a vast difference between what one sees and what one thinks one sees.

To limit oneself to "Atman" is to misle oneself, when, in reality, you are the indestructible Sunyata itself, the "which of which there is no whicher".

"You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the mighty ocean in the drop"
Rumi

Thank you very much!:yes:

 

[InfidelRiot]

Sentience is not the issue; A sentient mind can see with or without retention. Mirror is used only as a metaphor for the non-retentive mind. One that retains what it sees becomes a personal view. So we distinguish between 'my view', and 'the view'.

Is there really "a view" or is everyone thinking his view should be the view of everyone else?

 

[godnotgod]

Is there really "a view" or is everyone thinking his view should be the view of everyone else?

Well, there's one way of finding out: eliminate all that is connected to the latter and see what is left. I can tell you that you will be left with absolutely nothing, but it is in that nothing that you will find the pearl you are inquiring about.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Well, there's one way of finding out: eliminate all that is connected to the latter and see what is left. I can tell you that you will be left with absolutely nothing, but it is in that nothing that you will find the pearl you are inquiring about.

If there is merely the one view, the personal view, then how can we possibly determine the truth of the view if everyone has their own view, discounting the sheep view, of course?

 

[godnotgod]

If there is merely the one view, the personal view, then how can we possibly determine the truth of the view if everyone has their own view, discounting the sheep view, of course?

There are two views: the personal view that is the conceptual view, which is the view that reality is comprised of separate 'things', including ourselves as separate entities; and the universal view that is the view prior to the formation of any concept; it is already in place prior to a single thought about what it is we see. It is called 'seeing thus', the immediate and direct experience of the world in and of itself.

That you have already noted that everyone has their own view is to see things as they are. You are seeing that fact via universal view.

 

[InfidelRiot]

There are two views: the personal view that is the conceptual view, which is the view that reality is comprised of separate 'things', including ourselves as separate entities; and the universal view that is the view prior to the formation of any concept; it is already in place prior to a single thought about what it is we see. It is called 'seeing thus', the immediate and direct experience of the world in and of itself.

That you have already noted that everyone has their own view is to see things as they are. You are seeing that fact via universal view.

So there can never be a truly universal view whereby everyone agrees on the same view, because man's ego will always prevent him from accepting something different than what his fellow man believes.