The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

That is precisely what I am, and thus, this is an expected outcome.

It is the deluded self making the claim about itself, that it is real, and you believe it, hook, line, and sinker! Of course that is what it wants you to think! How quaint!

Get over it, already!

I can tell you one thing: once you discover that it ain't real; once it knows it has been found out, and you make attempts to get out of its bag, it will put up the biggest fuss you can imagine. Oh, such fun! The more you push and pull, the tighter it gets. Once you get out of that bag, however, you will understand what it means to be amongst the Grateful Dead, LOL!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

lol.

It's interesting that you strive so hard to patronize. You keep calling me ignorant, and allude that I am missing some point, Yet, of the two of us only I base my statements in the reality that faces you. You keep referring tot hings not in evidence, keep negating my statements with illusory references and 'some day' dreams of being shown to be correct. But you have nothing to actually provide; in some of the above exchanges where you strive to declare you've defined what our true anture is, you begin with a big buildup and then whimper out by simply claiming, it's not what I am saying. Where is the actual demonstrable definition?

Your Eastern flavor is not causing me to put up any walls; I don't fear that which is powerless. I simply dismiss it, as I have already said, as something which simply to denies everything that seems real for something that doesn't even make sense, wishing aside..

Science is not a crutch; it's actually useful. Disbelief in it, however, IS a crutch, for those who cannot handle what is. I love when the people who want to put science down, are always the ones scrambling to show some nebulous wish of theirs is 'really what's real'. Why would your philosophy fly from being shown? Truth is self-evident, as it has no 'need' to be mysterious. Why the concealment, why the lack of ability to actually manifest? It's just a wishing exercise for extra meaning, where there is none, save for the value of the wish itself.

You are offering koans. It's just a collection of nonsense with profundity as its dream. You insist you are stating facts but you have to provide facts to be true. You have failed to do so; in fact your entire basis seems to be the refutation of any process by which facts could be gleaned in the first place, that they are 'all wrong'. Which, if 'being true' is the aim, makes no sense. . Wish in one hand...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is the deluded self making the claim about itself, that it is real, and you believe it, hook, line, and sinker! Of course that is what it wants you to think! How quaint!

Get over it, already!

I can tell you one thing: once you discover that it ain't real; once it knows it has been found out, and you make attempts to get out of its bag, it will put up the biggest fuss you can imagine. Oh, such fun! The more you push and pull, the tighter it gets. Once you get out of that bag, however, you will understand what it means to be amongst the Grateful Dead, LOL!

And how am I deluded, exactly?

You keep asserting this but there are no facts to back it up. It's simply you being contrary, to no purpose other than gainsaying.

'once you discover...' means you aren't right, and you threaten some future where everything will change and you will magically be so. Nope. Can't do it right now, can't do it 'some day' either. You're starting to sound like a Christian, there, a little bit.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course that is what it wants you to think! How quaint!

'It', who?
And why does 'it' want me fooled?

 

[cottage]

I have pointed to the idea of our 'true nature' from several angles, but you apparently are not reading this thread, or you would have had some idea of it by now.

Actually, I've come to this discussion reading from about a hundred posts back. And I the reason I politely asked the question is because I'm [still] not seeing a satisfactory explanation for what you call 'our true nature' (more on which below).

I will attempt to point once again to it (point, since it cannot really be defined), via of Chinese Taoism, which uses the metaphor of The Uncarved Block for one's true, or original nature. One's true nature, like an uncarved block of wood, has no marks yet upon it, marks that are those which come about through our social indoctrination, and even our biological heredity.

Pu
Pu (simplified Chinese: 朴; traditional Chinese: 樸; pinyin: pǔ, pú; Wade–Giles: p'u; lit. "uncut wood") is translated "uncarved block", "unhewn log", or "simplicity". It is a metaphor for the state of wu wei (無&#29234 and the principle of jian (&#20745.[54] It represents a passive state of receptiveness. Pu is a symbol for a state of pure potential and perception without prejudice. In this state, Taoists believe everything is seen as it is, without preconceptions or illusion.

Pu is usually seen as keeping oneself in the primordial state of tao. It is believed to be the true nature of the mind, unburdened by knowledge or experiences. In the state of pu, there is no right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. There is only pure experience, or awareness, free from learned labels and definitions. It is this state of being that is the goal of following wu wei.

With respect to the discussion, our social indoctrinations includes those concepts we accept without question, such as Time, Space, and Causation, as realities, rather than as temporal overlays onto Reality. Our true natures thus become obscured under the din of social interaction, learning, and exposure to assumed authority.

As you say, time, space and causality are reality in as much as we accept them as such, as being part of the experiential world; they need not exist, yet they do exist, whereas the things you’ve referred to as 'Absolute', and 'changeless', or 'the true state of reality', are a mere metaphysical speculation, which presumes to argue beyond the experiential world. Also if the personal pronoun 'I' is illegitimate, then so is the adjective 'our', as indicating the possessors or agents of the supposed true natures. And, may I say, Chinese Taoism and Buddhism are also 'assumed authorities'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I will attempt to point once again to it (point, since it cannot really be defined), via of Chinese Taoism, which uses the metaphor of The Uncarved Block for one's true, or original nature. One's true nature, like an uncarved block of wood, has no marks yet upon it, marks that are those which come about through our social indoctrination, and even our biological heredity.

Pu
Pu (simplified Chinese: 朴; traditional Chinese: 樸; pinyin: pǔ, pú; Wade–Giles: p'u; lit. "uncut wood") is translated "uncarved block", "unhewn log", or "simplicity". It is a metaphor for the state of wu wei (無&#29234 and the principle of jian (&#20745.[54] It represents a passive state of receptiveness. Pu is a symbol for a state of pure potential and perception without prejudice. In this state, Taoists believe everything is seen as it is, without preconceptions or illusion.

Pu is usually seen as keeping oneself in the primordial state of tao. It is believed to be the true nature of the mind, unburdened by knowledge or experiences. In the state of pu, there is no right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. There is only pure experience, or awareness, free from learned labels and definitions. It is this state of being that is the goal of following wu wei.

With respect to the discussion, our social indoctrinations includes those concepts we accept without question, such as Time, Space, and Causation, as realities, rather than as temporal overlays onto Reality. Our true natures thus become obscured under the din of social interaction, learning, and exposure to assumed authority.

Since Cottage also quoted with and struggled to understand the point of this, I'll add more questions:

There is no purpose nor outcome, from an uncarved block. It serves no function until it is carved. Does not this conjured block await the carving? Otherwise it is simply a block of wood. A chunk of material removed from the larger mass from whence it came. Why the block? Why not the tree? Why a metaphor that stalls midstream?

If a mind merely experiences but assigns not a single label to its experiences... why is it experiencing? It is a complex construct that does not perform the one function it was manifested for, and thus, it is useless even to itself. A mind is meant to experience AND label. A block of wood is removed in order TO BE MADE INTO... something else. In other metaphorica terms the mind you seek to become is a student who does not learn.

Whyfore the student, then?

Aimlessness as aspiration. No, thanks. Desire is superior.

 

[Tiberius]

Still waiting for something more than your unsupported claims, GNG...

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, I've come to this discussion reading from about a hundred posts back. And I the reason I politely asked the question is because I'm [still] not seeing a satisfactory explanation for what you call 'our true nature' (more on which below).



As you say, time, space and causality are reality in as much as we accept them as such, as being part of the experiential world; they need not exist, yet they do exist, whereas the things you’ve referred to as 'Absolute', and 'changeless', or 'the true state of reality', are a mere metaphysical speculation, which presumes to argue beyond the experiential world. Also if the personal pronoun 'I' is illegitimate, then so is the adjective 'our', as indicating the possessors or agents of the supposed true natures. And, may I say, Chinese Taoism and Buddhism are also 'assumed authorities'.

It's not that the Absolute and true state of reality argue beyond the experiential; they are very much right here, right now, which is the only reality we can know. I have repeatedly stated that there is no other time than the Present Moment, and that this Present Moment is Timeless, Causeless, and Undivided, and those attributes are those of the Absolute. In other words, the ordinary world we see and experience in front of us is the same as the miraculous world of the Infinite. The problem comes in our view of here and now. Because we formulate concepts and symbols to represent the world of here and now, we see and interpret it, and then proceed to act upon it through these filters, without being aware that we do. Our entire point of departure is based on conceptual models of reality, or incomplete information about it. Facts and data alone cannot provide a complete picture of reality, even though our conceptual model (ie; 'science') tells us it can.

Your point is well-taken re: "I" and "our", but that is merely a technicality, for lack of a more precise description. No, there are no 'possessors' or 'agents' of true nature; there is only pure reality itself, that is non-conceptual and immediate. The moment we add an "I" or its experience through time, space, or causation, we have moved one step away from the direct experience of reality, which then implies an experiencer of reality.

You suddenly burn your finger on a hot stove. The immediate response is a recoiling and 'Ouch!', and that is all there is. In that very moment, there is no "I", no agent of the experience. There is only the experience itself. A moment later, when it is realized what has occurred, and self-reflection comes into play, we say: "Oh...I burned my finger!", when, in fact, there was no entity that burned its finger. There was only finger-burning, and that is all there was. What we think of as an experiencer of the experience, and the experience itself, are actually one event.

Both Buddhism and Taoism have their orthodox 'authorities', as you say, but they also have mystical branches, such as Zen, and it is to these mystical branches that I refer. They merely point to some idea or reality, and then leave it up to you to see the validity of what is being pointed to, as in the example of the Uncarved Block metaphor. In this respect, the experience is an intuitive one, rather than one involving dogma or doctrine. There is no cut and dried teaching that is handed to you from some authority that you must believe in. What is being pointed to is always 'now' and the experience of it is always spontaneous, never drawing on memory, knowledge, history, or authority, as YOU are the authority. This is the experience of one's true nature, rather than through one's mind as conditioned through learning and technique.

You just stated that time, space, and causality exist. What is the reference by which you are making that assertion?

 

[godnotgod]

Still waiting for something more than your unsupported claims, GNG...

Stop wasting your 'time' waiting; go see for yourself whether what I say is valid or not. Heathen Hammer is trying to do exactly that, although I am maintaining that he is still doing it via the self-created conceptual model of a self.

 

[PolyHedral]

Stop wasting your 'time' waiting; go see for yourself whether what I say is valid or not. Heathen Hammer is trying to do exactly that, although I am maintaining that he is still doing it via the self-created conceptual model of a self.

All of the rigorous tests ever done suggests that you're way is not valid, and is not reliable.

Personally, I'm not going to accept any "true nature" of reality that can't explain actual, physical results. If you want to say that math does not describe the "true nature" of the universe, fine, but the real true nature has to then explain the math. Otherwise, it's not true.

 

[godnotgod]

Since Cottage also quoted with and struggled to understand the point of this, I'll add more questions:

There is no purpose nor outcome, from an uncarved block. It serves no function until it is carved. Does not this conjured block await the carving? Otherwise it is simply a block of wood. A chunk of material removed from the larger mass from whence it came. Why the block? Why not the tree? Why a metaphor that stalls midstream?

If a mind merely experiences but assigns not a single label to its experiences... why is it experiencing? It is a complex construct that does not perform the one function it was manifested for, and thus, it is useless even to itself. A mind is meant to experience AND label. A block of wood is removed in order TO BE MADE INTO... something else. In other metaphorica terms the mind you seek to become is a student who does not learn.

Whyfore the student, then?

Aimlessness as aspiration. No, thanks. Desire is superior.

Reality does not necessarily need to have a purpose or utility, to be valid. This is not about the practicality of the Uncarved Block, or our true nature, but about its inherent virtue. When we are in touch with that inner virtue, it allows us to see things as they actually are, rather than how our conditioned (ie; 'carved') minds tell us they are. It is our socialized self that is the repository of external authority and its dictates. This is the mind you refer to as one which names and labels reality via learning. The Uncarved Block is the state of mind in which learning, naming, and labeling have not yet occurred, and so it is the original state of our mind, which is that which sees things as they are. What could be more useful than that, unless, of course, you wish to see things as they are not.

No one is saying not to label. The problem is that, through repeated labeling, we mistake the label for reality. That is why it is crucial to keep original nature alive and attentive, so that we can know the difference. Otherwise, we eat the menu instead of the meal. We end up living an imitation of life, wherein life has passed us by before we know it.

Nurturing desire is to live via the appetites, rather than via the intellect. There are three goals of desire, namely Power, Sensation, and Security. These soon become Addictions, requiring greater and greater amounts of them to 'satisfy', but alas, they fail to satisfy in the end, as they are mostly empty calories. They are merely temporal gratifications that feed the ego. Your description of absorbing another's Quickening is a good example of this delusive path of ego gratification, though you may assign some imaginary noble or heroic attribute to the act.

But by all means, give your desires free reign. It is one way of eventually finding out that they lead nowhere. But that is just how good the illusion they create that they are superior pursuits actualy is.

 

[godnotgod]

All of the rigorous tests ever done suggests that you're way is not valid, and is not reliable.

Personally, I'm not going to accept any "true nature" of reality that can't explain actual, physical results. If you want to say that math does not describe the "true nature" of the universe, fine, but the real true nature has to then explain the math. Otherwise, it's not true.

The true nature of the universe and your own true nature are one and the same. To know one is to know the other.

If your own mind is in a state of confusion or metaphysical suffering, you cannot see clearly. That is the human condition, for the most part. So before embarking on trying to understand what the universe is all about via science or some other kind of 'knowledge', it is more important to solve one's immediate dilemma first. By getting in touch with our original nature, prior to its having been clouded over via learning and social indoctrination, we are able to develop a clarity of insight beyond those of our conditioned and limited experience of reality. In so doing, the nature of reality also becomes apparent, since they are one and the same. It is not that the nature of reality has changed; only our distorted view of it has changed, so that we now see it as it actually is, rather than how our conceptual models dictate it to be, even though our conceptual models provide data, facts, and knowledge about it, such as math and science do.

"The Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation. Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics [and math] of the Universe takes the form that we see."

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

All of the rigorous tests ever done suggests that you're way is not valid, and is not reliable.

So why is it that such 'rigorous tests' have resulted in even more uncertainty than ever before as to what the universe is all about?

Your rigor cannot be applied to an experience that is beyond mere methodology, but the experience is one which puts the rigor into proper context. To put it bluntly, you don't understand the nature of that which you are applying your rigor to, and you cannot understand it via an intellectual point of departure.

What you are attempting to understand is much greater than how you can possibly imagine it to be, but by the same token, it is far simpler than you imagine it to be. There is not a single thing that you or anyone can come up with in descriptive or analytical terms that even comes close. So the suggestion here is to approach the question with absolutely no-thing in mind. In fact, it should be approached with no-mind at all.

 

[godnotgod]

Aimlessness as aspiration. No, thanks. Desire is superior.

I'm not offering you anything you don't already have. Your true nature is already in place, whether you recognize it or not. It's just that you choose a karma-driven path instead of a way-driven one.

What does that mean? It means, in terms of your pursuit of desire, that you have one eye on the goal, and one eye on the path, rather than both eyes on the path.

Here's more ambiguous, useless, undocumented poetry for you to ponder:
(of course, your red-meat, desire-driven mind will simply poo poo it and dismiss it as just so much meaningless psycho-babble)




“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.

These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery,”
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences."

Tao te Ching, Chapter 1

 

[Tiberius]

Stop wasting your 'time' waiting; go see for yourself whether what I say is valid or not. Heathen Hammer is trying to do exactly that, although I am maintaining that he is still doing it via the self-created conceptual model of a self.

I have investigated your claims. Everything I found indicates you are wrong. Firstly, what you say is in contradiction with modern science. Secondly, meditation has never been a reliable method by which to gather factual information about the universe.

In short, you are encouraging the abandonment of reason and the embracing of gut feeling.

Oh, and I find it interesting to note that you have the attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong. Tell me, is there anything that could convince you that YOU are wrong?

 

[godnotgod]

I have investigated your claims. Everything I found indicates you are wrong. Firstly, what you say is in contradiction with modern science. Secondly, meditation has never been a reliable method by which to gather factual information about the universe.

What I have said is being validated by science, if you have been paying attention.

I never said meditation is a method by which to gather factual knowledge. Everything I have said has indicated that it does not. I said that it is a pathway to gaining a clear view of one's own nature, and into the true nature of reality, something factual knowledge is incapable of doing.

In short, you are encouraging the abandonment of reason and the embracing of gut feeling.

So? It is Reason that condemns you. Gut feeling is closer to your true center of consciousness, but you have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the notion (perpetrated by the brain) that your brain is the center of consciousness.

Oh, and I find it interesting to note that you have the attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong. Tell me, is there anything that could convince you that YOU are wrong?

Many of you have repeatedly said I am wrong. I have stated it once only, and you, of course, took immediate note of it. However, I am willing to defend that statement should it be challenged.

Yes, there is something that will convince me that I am wrong: show me how science achieves an understanding of the true nature of the universe.

 

[Tiberius]

What I have said is being validated by science, if you have been paying attention.

No it hasn't. You've been making wild unsupported claims and not one thing that you have said regarding this is supported by any science.

I never said meditation is a method by which to gather factual knowledge. Everything I have said has indicated that it does not. I said that it is a pathway to gaining a clear view of one's own nature, and into the true nature of reality, something factual knowledge is incapable of doing.

lol, this just gets better!

So, lemme get this straight. According to you, meditation gives one a clear view into the true nature of reality, BUT it doesn't give any factual knowledge?

Now, call me crazy if you must, but I think that knowledge of the true nature of reality IS factual knowledge!

You're going around in circles, making yourself dizzy and getting nowhere.

So? It is Reason that condemns you. Gut feeling is closer to your true center of consciousness, but you have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the notion (perpetrated by the brain) that your brain is the center of consciousness.

Ya huh. Once again, got any evidence of this or is this more unsupported claims? I bet I can guess...

Many of you have repeatedly said I am wrong. I have stated it once only, and you, of course, took immediate note of it. However, I am willing to defend that statement should it be challenged.

Yes, there is something that will convince me that I am wrong: show me how science achieves an understanding of the true nature of the universe.

[/QUOTE]

Quantum mechanics does it quite nicely. And it's certainly a lot closer to the truth about the universe than anything you have said.

Of course, you're just going to get around this by claiming that nothing we say counts unless it fits with what you have already decided is the true nature of the universe.

 

[godnotgod]

No it hasn't. You've been making wild unsupported claims and not one thing that you have said regarding this is supported by any science.

I refuse to continue explaining things over and over to someone who ignores what I say, and just wants to bait me. You are not reading my posts. You are simply going to have to do your own research in regards to this question. It's on the net, so go for it.

lol, this just gets better!

So, lemme get this straight. According to you, meditation gives one a clear view into the true nature of reality, BUT it doesn't give any factual knowledge?

Again, you are ignoring my posts. One more time: factual knowledge about the universe is not an understanding of the nature of the universe. Having said that, the conscious awareness brought about via meditation does not eliminate the use of factual knowledge in your everyday life. It's just that facts are seen in the context of your new awakened awareness.

'Before I began my study of Zen, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees. When I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees'
From Zen teachings

Now, call me crazy if you must, but I think that knowledge of the true nature of reality IS factual knowledge!

Yes, but to know that, you must get to the true nature of reality FIRST, but factual knowledge alone will not get you there. If it did, science, which deals with facts, would have clinched that question long ago. But it is the mystics who have the understanding, and their understanding is fairly consistent with each other.

Ya huh. Once again, got any evidence of this or is this more unsupported claims? I bet I can guess...

"That consciousness is by no means confined to the brain is shown by Lama Govinda, who writes as follows: “While, according to Western conceptions, the brain is the exclusive seat of consciousness, yogic experience shows that our brain-consciousness is only one among a number of possible forms of consciousness, and that these, according to their function and nature, can be localized or centered in various organs of the body. These ‘organs,’ which collect, transform, and distribute the forces flowing through them, are called cakras, or centers of force. From them radiate secondary streams of psychic force, comparable to the spokes of a wheel, the ribs of an umbrella, or the petals of a lotus. In other words, these cakras are the points in which psychic forces and bodily functions merge into each other or penetrate each other. They are the focal points in which cosmic and psychic energies crystallize into bodily qualities, and in which bodily qualities are dissolved or transmuted again into psychic forces.

Settling the body’s center of gravity below the navel, that is, establishing a center of consciousness in the hara, automatically relaxes tensions arising from the habitual hunching of the shoulders, straining of the neck, and squeezing in of the stomach. As this rigidity disappears, an enhanced vitality and new sense of freedom are experienced throughout the body and mind, which are felt more and more to be a unity.

Zazen (meditation) has clearly demonstrated that with the mind’s eye centered in the hara the proliferation of random ideas is diminished and the attainment of one-pointedness accelerated, since a plethora of blood from the head is drawn down to the abdomen, “cooling” the brain and soothing the autonomic nervous system. This in turn leads to a greater degree of mental and emotional stability. One who functions from his hara, therefore, is not easily disturbed. He is, moreover, able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency owing to the fact that his mind, anchored in his hara, does not waver.

With the mind in the hara, narrow and egocentric thinking is superseded by a broadness of outlook and a magnanimity of spirit. This is because thinking from the vital hara center, being free of mediation by the limited discursive intellect, is spontaneous and all embracing. Perception from the hara tends toward integration and unity rather than division and fragmentation. In short, it is thinking which sees things steadily and whole.

The figure of the Buddha seated on his lotus throne—serene, stable, all-knowing and all-encompassing, radiating boundless light and compassion—is the foremost example of hara expressed through perfect enlightenment."

The Hara: Seat of Enlightenment
[/QUOTE]

Quantum mechanics does it quite nicely. And it's certainly a lot closer to the truth about the universe than anything you have said.

Really? Show me how QM has solved the question about the nature of the universe. If anything, it has turned everything topsy-turvy. We know what QM is telling us, but we haven't a clue as to how to interpret the data. Is this why famed Quantum physicist Anton Zellinger is conferencing with the Dalai Lama? see here: [youtube]Zjd26JSaq64[/youtube]
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6 - YouTube

Of course, you're just going to get around this by claiming that nothing we say counts unless it fits with what you have already decided is the true nature of the universe.

I am saying no such thing. I am saying that what science is saying is nothing at all in terms of the nature of reality. Show me how science's observations of the phenomenal world counts towards understanding the true nature of reality. It is no closer to piercing to the heart of the Great Mystery than when it began. Mystical knowledge, on the other hand, has been pointing to it for centuries. Science cannot fathom this mystery because it is attempting to do it via dissection and fragmentation of reality. It is like trying to capture the wind in a box. The result is dead air.

For a long time, zoologists attempted to study animals in zoos to gain an 'understanding' of animal behavior. Then they realized how wrong they were, and changed to studying them in their natural habitats, which are living systems.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Reality does not necessarily need to have a purpose or utility, to be valid. This is not about the practicality of the Uncarved Block, or our true nature, but about its inherent virtue. When we are in touch with that inner virtue, it allows us to see things as they actually are, rather than how our conditioned (ie; 'carved') minds tell us they are. It is our socialized self that is the repository of external authority and its dictates. This is the mind you refer to as one which names and labels reality via learning. The Uncarved Block is the state of mind in which learning, naming, and labeling have not yet occurred, and so it is the original state of our mind, which is that which sees things as they are. What could be more useful than that, unless, of course, you wish to see things as they are not.

No one is saying not to label. The problem is that, through repeated labeling, we mistake the label for reality. That is why it is crucial to keep original nature alive and attentive, so that we can know the difference. Otherwise, we eat the menu instead of the meal. We end up living an imitation of life, wherein life has passed us by before we know it.

Nurturing desire is to live via the appetites, rather than via the intellect. There are three goals of desire, namely Power, Sensation, and Security. These soon become Addictions, requiring greater and greater amounts of them to 'satisfy', but alas, they fail to satisfy in the end, as they are mostly empty calories. They are merely temporal gratifications that feed the ego. Your description of absorbing another's Quickening is a good example of this delusive path of ego gratification, though you may assign some imaginary noble or heroic attribute to the act.

But by all means, give your desires free reign. It is one way of eventually finding out that they lead nowhere. But that is just how good the illusion they create that they are superior pursuits actualy is.

So, basically, in order to validate an hypothesis of yours which flies in teh face of all otherwise valid experiences, and which is based on either vaguely- or undefined catch phrases.. you're going to explain it using more vaguely- or undefined catch phrases?

You are dead wrong about what desires are. My desires stem from my intellect. My intellect creates these desires and then formulates how to achieve them.
It's not wisdom to seek advice from someone who rejects desire, if I need advice on desire. Just as I don't ask abstinence-promoters how to have good sex. I don't seek knowledge from people who don't possess experience with the subject of that knowledge.

These successes lead me to some wheres, and often. You simply have no value for desire. That's fine, but that does not make your myopic view the world-view. Again, we are not One. You are limited in your scope and you wish to impose your limits upon all others.

Not gonna happen.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm not offering you anything you don't already have. Your true nature is already in place, whether you recognize it or not. It's just that you choose a karma-driven path instead of a way-driven one.

it's false bravado for you to keep insisting I don't know my way when I've already strongly defined what my way is.

What does that mean? It means, in terms of your pursuit of desire, that you have one eye on the goal, and one eye on the path, rather than both eyes on the path.

.

There is no point in walking the path if there is no destination.

Here's more ambiguous, useless, undocumented poetry for you to ponder:
(of course, your red-meat, desire-driven mind will simply poo poo it and dismiss it as just so much meaningless psycho-babble)

“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.

These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery,”
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences."

Tao te Ching, Chapter 1

Yes, it's useless psycho babble. Though obviously it is documented; you gave the source.

the earlier statement about what is the point of the block of wood.... you never really addressed it in any meaningful way.

the point of the question is: if there is no purpose for the block of wood, why is it removed from the tree.? It's your metaphor after all. Does it not make sense even to you? Why is there a block of wood removed from a natural state if it is not to be used to form something? Why are we, the block of wood, removed from the tree, knowledge of our 'true nature', if there's no reason to have removed us? Translating this to reality [at least, as people who value it view it], why are these 'true natures' you keep maintaining despite an absolute lack of support, hidden? What is the point of concealment? This total lack of awareness of our own inherent details, which you posit, must be some vast conspiracy, since we are all apparently affected. If this is so, why Why bother? Why are we unaware?

You see, salt dissolves in water for a reason. What is teh reason we do not know our true natures?

If you can't come up with at least a decent reason please stop wasting our time with your totally pointless take on what reality is. 'There is some kind of bizarre smokescreen veiling our awareness which you are almost incapable of piercing but oh, there's no real reason for it to be there.'