The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

I see that you don't realize it but your response basically QED'd his prediction. You already have what it is you want science to confirm; it's your own, totally unsupported idea.
There is no Great Mystery that science is missing. Science is showing you it isn't there.

Your next response likely is "Well, science is wrong!"

Shall we see how long we deluded science-lovers can keep this going accurately?

 

[cottage]

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?

I should begin by clearing up a misunderstanding. When I mention time, space and causality I’m referring to the same singular concept as you; and that is the universe. But the universe isn’t necessary and its existence can be denied without contradiction. Therefore time, space and causality, if they exist, are contingent. But since it is self-contradictory to say ‘nothing exists’, we are led by self-evident and anti-sceptical reasoning to acknowledge that something exists, but then we are immediately returned to where we started: for whatever exists (or appears to exist) need not and may not exist. On that account there is no ‘True nature’, no ‘miraculous world of the ‘Infinite’ and no ‘Absolute’; and thus the argument for 'now', as in the present moment, is as tenuous a proposition as any argument from the past. And yet we all share a mitigated scepticism. We’ll continue to believe in gravity right up to the point where we can no longer keep our feet on the ground, and we’ll continue to believe we existed yesterday just as we believe we exist today.

So for the most fundamental of reasons I must disagree that what you call the Absolute is evident in reality or that the experiential world can be known in terms of truth. That the empirical world can be doubted does not lead us by default to suppose a super-sensory world.
But I can see why some people have an inclination or a disposition towards mystical belief systems, for they attempt to explain the world and give hope for the future. But for myself, when I introspect, I see no self-intuitive truth or self-evident light of reasoning that leads me to accept one metaphysical system over any of the others. In short, mystical beliefs are not something that is true (as in cannot be false).

 

[cottage]

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.

May I ask what is this 'mystical knowledge'?* Please note I'm not asking for a re-run of previous responses, or a synopsis of what is believed, but a specific answer that addresses the question of what it is that is claimed to be known?

*My italics.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

I have been reading your posts. There is nothing of merit in them. There is nothing that you are saying that is verifiable.

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.

But since that conscious awareness is different for each person, it cannot provide any OBJECTIVE information about anything.

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.

You are not making any sense.

"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

Ah. So you are using subjective claims to support your subjective claims?

Isn't that like saying, "I make [subjective claim here}, and I know I'm right because here's a guy who agrees with me!"

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

Scientists meets with Dalai Lama, therefore science is ignorant? My goodness...


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.

Yes you did. You have decided that the true nature of the universe is the one that you found with meditation and whatnot. And you discount what I say because it isn't the same as what you found with meditation.

However, I have the benefit of evidence.

Geez, I remember the days when you were just trying to convince us all that time didn't exist. Your new "the truth about the universe can only be found through meditation" nonsense is even worse...

 

[godnotgod]

May I ask what is this 'mystical knowledge'?* Please note I'm not asking for a re-run of previous responses, or a synopsis of what is believed, but a specific answer that addresses the question of what it is that is claimed to be known?

*My italics.

Mystical knowledge, or better, awareness/insight, is simply seeing things as they are, prior to the mind forming any conceptual frameworks. It does not accumulate facts or data, but simply sees. There is no object of knowing; that which is known and that which is knowing are one and the same. Seeing is the realization that there are no separate 'things', contrary to how our conditioned minds see reality via conceptual frameworks. There is no 'knower' of knowledge. There is no history, no memory of things past, and so it is an experience in and of the living Present Moment, which is always complete.

Alan Watts elaborates:

Metaphysic: The indefinable basis of knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge or "realization" is an intense clarity of attention to that indefinable and immediate "point" of knowledge which is always "now", and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought. A consciousness of "life" in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

How can your intellect know what to desire unless desire were already present?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Your Quickening description of 'your way', for one, tells me that you don't.

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

The path IS the destination.

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

I suppose we can say that everything and anything one can say about reality is useless psycho-babble in the end. The only thing that is not is reality itself, which, btw, is exactly what the tao is.

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?

You are trying to make the metaphor answer more than it is designed to do. Pragmatism is not the consideration here; virtue is. The point at which the block of wood is removed from the tree and is still uncarved is what the metaphor is all about, and nothing beyond that. It is the virtue of the uncarved condition that makes it useful, just as the empty hub of a wagon wheel makes it essential to the usefulness of the wheel.

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.'

Because in the pursuit of our state of Identity, driven by desire, we lost touch with it. It's still there, but the din created by the ego, its desires and worldly pursuits drowns its voice out. Once the ego gains hold and is rewarded with adulation and gratification of every sort, it will do what is necessary to stay on top, further subjugating our true nature. But at some point, one will notice something is not quite right amidst all that the ego does and tries to control. It is at this point of 'unsatisfactoriness' that one will begin the phase of seeking. Once found out, the ego and its machinations will step up the ante, putting obstacles in one's way at every opportunity. The last thing it wants is to die, but unless it does, the authentic self cannot manifest itself. Once the ego is subdued, however, an awakening can occur.

The accumulation of knowledge is one way the ego shores itself up to create security for itself, but it is merely a pretense of authority; just another form of the game of one-upmanship that continues to keep man asleep.

 

[godnotgod]

Waking Sleep

The third state of consciousness is experienced when man awakens from physical sleep and plunges at once into the condition called "identification." Identification is the essence of the third state of consciousness. In this state, man has no separate awareness. He is lost in whatever he happens to be doing, feeling, thinking. Because he is lost, immersed, not present in himself, this condition, the third state of consciousness, is referred to in the Gurdjieffian system as the state of "waking sleep." Man in this state is described not as the real man but as a machine, without inner unity, real will or permanent I, acted upon and manipulated by external forces as a puppet is activated by the puppeteer.

For many people, this concept of waking sleep makes no sense at all. They firmly maintain that, once they "wake up," they are responsible beings,
masters of themselves, fully conscious, and that anyone who tells them that they are not is a fool or a liar. It is almost impossible to convince such
people that they are deceiving themselves because, when a man is told that he is not really conscious, a mechanism is activated within him which awakens him for a moment. He replies, indignantly, "But I am fully conscious," and because of this "trick of Nature" as Ouspensky used to call it, he does become conscious for a moment. He moves from the third room to the threshold of the fourth room, answers the challenge, and at once goes to sleep again, firmly convinced that he is a fully awakened being.

So, in the Myth of the Mad King, it makes no difference how often the king's ministers tell him that he is living in the cellar instead of his palace. He will reply, and really believe his reply, that the cellar is his palace and that they are the mad ones for suggesting that it is not.

It was exactly this reaction that Plato described in his account of the prisoners in the cave (which is actually a variant of the Myth of the Mad King). Suppose, says Plato in his Republic (Loeb edition), that one of the prisoners in the cave, whose only impression of reality is derived from watching shadows on the walls, escapes into the world outside. Suppose he is of an altruistic disposition and returns to tell the other prisoners of the bright and varied world that lies beyond their prison. Suppose he announces that all things they have ever seen are merely shadows. Will they welcome that message? Not likely!

There will certainly be laughter at his expense and it will be said that the only result of his escapade up there is that he has come back with his eyesight ruined. Moral: it's a fool's game even to make the attempt to go up aloft; and as for the busybody who goes in for all the liberating and translating to higher spheres, if ever we have a chance to catch and kill him we will certainly take it. The fact is that man in the third state of consciousness is in a situation from which it is hard to escape. He does not recognize the state as waking sleep, does not understand the meaning of identification? If anyone tells him that he is not fully conscious, he replies that he is conscious and, by the "trick of Nature," becomes conscious for a moment. He is like a man surrounded by distorting mirrors which offer him an image of himself that in no way corresponds to reality. If he is fat, they tell him he is slender. If he is old, they tell him he is young. He is very happy to believe the mirrors for they save him from that hardest of all tasks, the struggle to know himself as he-really is.

Furthermore, this sleeping man is surrounded by other sleeping people and the whole culture in which he lives serves to perpetuate that state of sleep. Its ethics, morality, value systems are all based on the idea that it is lawful and desirable for man to spend his life in the third room rather than in a struggle to enter the fourth. Teachings that exhort men to awaken, to adopt a system of values based on levels of being rather than material possessions are distrusted. Theoretically, in the United States at least, what are loosely called "spiritual values" are accepted as valid, but practically they do not carry much weight.
*****

The Master Game, by Arthur deRopp

 

[godnotgod]

I see that you don't realize it but your response basically QED'd his prediction. You already have what it is you want science to confirm; it's your own, totally unsupported idea.
There is no Great Mystery that science is missing. Science is showing you it isn't there.

Your next response likely is "Well, science is wrong!"

Shall we see how long we deluded science-lovers can keep this going accurately?

Quantum Physics is showing science that what science thought is not there, and is more in line with what mystics have been saying all along.

No mystery? Is that why science is spending zillions to try to find out what makes the universe tick? If there is no mystery, show me where science has it all wrapped up.

 

[godnotgod]

I should begin by clearing up a misunderstanding. When I mention time, space and causality I’m referring to the same singular concept as you; and that is the universe. But the universe isn’t necessary and its existence can be denied without contradiction. Therefore time, space and causality, if they exist, are contingent. But since it is self-contradictory to say ‘nothing exists’, we are led by self-evident and anti-sceptical reasoning to acknowledge that something exists, but then we are immediately returned to where we started: for whatever exists (or appears to exist) need not and may not exist. On that account there is no ‘True nature’, no ‘miraculous world of the ‘Infinite’ and no ‘Absolute’; and thus the argument for 'now', as in the present moment, is as tenuous a proposition as any argument from the past. And yet we all share a mitigated scepticism. We’ll continue to believe in gravity right up to the point where we can no longer keep our feet on the ground, and we’ll continue to believe we existed yesterday just as we believe we exist today.

So for the most fundamental of reasons I must disagree that what you call the Absolute is evident in reality or that the experiential world can be known in terms of truth. That the empirical world can be doubted does not lead us by default to suppose a super-sensory world.
But I can see why some people have an inclination or a disposition towards mystical belief systems, for they attempt to explain the world and give hope for the future. But for myself, when I introspect, I see no self-intuitive truth or self-evident light of reasoning that leads me to accept one metaphysical system over any of the others. In short, mystical beliefs are not something that is true (as in cannot be false).

True nature is beyond existence/non-existence. It is non-dual.

When you remove the screen of Time, Space, and Causation from the mind, the universe is then seen as the Absolute. They are one and the same. But because of these conceptual overlays, we see them as separate.

What state of mind do you suppose is in operation which forms doubts about the empirical world? Obviously, something somewhere in our consciousness suspects something is amiss.

The Present Moment is not the fleeting moment of the clock you refer to as compared to a past; it is outside of Time, and therefore, is Timeless.

'We will continue to believe' = 'we will continue to delude ourselves'

re: 'mystical belief systems': there is no such thing. the mystical experience is beyond beliefs, opinions, doctrines, etc. That is why it is a mystical practice; it has left the orthodox belief systems behind.

You're right; mystical systems are not true, one over another. They are non-dual, and so do not propose truth or non-truth, belief or non-belief, etc. An authentic mystical 'system', as you call it, is only a pathway to a spiritual experience via of it pointing its finger. It is the spiritual experience itself that is the important thing, not what leads up to it.

 

[godnotgod]

But since that conscious awareness is different for each person, it cannot provide any OBJECTIVE information about anything.

The conscious awareness brought about via meditation is beyond the conditioned mind, where differences do exist. An awakened mind is one in which subject-object have become one. It's consciousness is non-local; it is universal consciousness.

Ah. So you are using subjective claims to support your subjective claims?

I have told you many times I am not using reason, science, logic, or analysis. The information I provide comes about via direct experience, and is neither subjective nor objective. It is non-dual.

Isn't that like saying, "I make [subjective claim here}, and I know I'm right because here's a guy who agrees with me!"

No.

Scientists meets with Dalai Lama, therefore science is ignorant? My goodness...

Nope! If you bother to watch the video, you will see that the scientist's motives are made clear.


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.

Yes you did. You have decided that the true nature of the universe is the one that you found with meditation and whatnot. And you discount what I say because it isn't the same as what you found with meditation.

No, that is not the reason. It is because the information you have found, while much of it is accurate, cannot address the question as to the nature of reality. Not only can it not achieve that, but it fails to even understand much of the factual knowledge it does have, especially in Quantum Physics. If you want to discuss factual knowledge, OK, but that is an entirely different question.

However, I have the benefit of evidence.

Yes?...and?...C:\.......

Geez, I remember the days when you were just trying to convince us all that time didn't exist. Your new "the truth about the universe can only be found through meditation" nonsense is even worse...

Does your silly gene kick in every 3 pages or so? I never said that the truth about the universe can only be found through meditation. That is a load of crap.

That time does not exist is the same discussion as the one about the true nature of reality.

 

[Tiberius]

The conscious awareness brought about via meditation is beyond the conditioned mind, where differences do exist. An awakened mind is one in which subject-object have become one. It's consciousness is non-local; it is universal consciousness.

My goodness. What a lot of psychobabble. It means nothing.

I have told you many times I am not using reason, science, logic, or analysis. The information I provide comes about via direct experience, and is neither subjective nor objective. It is non-dual.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you aren't using any verifiable method.

No.

Sure seems like it to me.

Nope! If you bother to watch the video, you will see that the scientist's motives are made clear.

Busy working, so haven't had the chance to.

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.

You are assuming that there is a "Great Mystery" because you want the universe to be mysterious.

No, that is not the reason. It is because the information you have found, while much of it is accurate, cannot address the question as to the nature of reality. Not only can it not achieve that, but it fails to even understand much of the factual knowledge it does have, especially in Quantum Physics. If you want to discuss factual knowledge, OK, but that is an entirely different question.

Seems to me that any factual, verifiably true information about the universe is part of the true nature of the universe! How can you say it isn't?

Yes?...and?...C:\.......

And you do not.

Does your silly gene kick in every 3 pages or so? I never said that the truth about the universe can only be found through meditation. That is a load of crap.

Then Can you suggest a non-meditation way of finding out the truth about the universe?

That time does not exist is the same discussion as the one about the true nature of reality.

You mean the discussion we were having AT AN EARLIER POINT IN TIME?

 

[godnotgod]

My goodness. What a lot of psychobabble. It means nothing.

Neither does the Sun mean zilch to Plato's Cave Dwellers, who only see dancing shadows on the walls they firmly believe is Reality.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you aren't using any verifiable method.

Who sez? They are indeed verifiable by anyone. Drop your baggage and go look for yourself with an open mind.

Sure seems like it to me.

That's because you are looking at it from the outside in. I know for certain that the hara is a center of consciousness from my own direct experience, and I am not talking about digestion. Again, if you want to verify what the article I posted says, go sit in meditation and focus on the hara. Do you see why this cannot be verified via science?

Busy working, so haven't had the chance to.

Then don't make statements based on it if you haven't seen it.

You are assuming that there is a "Great Mystery" because you want the universe to be mysterious.

I am calling it a mystery since that is what it is, at least to the rational mind. Scientists still do not know how to interpret their observations about Quantum Physics. They don't really know what a black hole really is. Nor light. Nor gravity. They know how these things behave, and they can sometimes predict their behavior, but they don't know what they actually ARE.

Seems to me that any factual, verifiably true information about the universe is part of the true nature of the universe! How can you say it isn't?

Yes, of course, but verifiable facts are not equivalent to the true nature of the universe. Verifiable facts, while nice and neat, are dead things. The universe is alive, conscious, and intelligent, so the universe is far more than the sum total of its verifiable facts.

And you do not.

Since you have all the evidence, and I have zilch, then you should be in a position to tell me what the universe is. What is the universe, Tiberius? Are your facts the universe?

Then Can you suggest a non-meditation way of finding out the truth about the universe?

Did'nt you say that science and its factual knowledge represents the true nature of the universe?

You mean the discussion we were having AT AN EARLIER POINT IN TIME?

Uh...no...I mean the discussion we are having now. Any discussion must occur now. None can occur in the past. There is no such thing as a discussion occurring in the past. A discussion is like music and water; they all flow only in the here and now.

 

[godnotgod]

Alan Watts comments on "I"

I am ever reluctant to admit that I am dead, my only
recourse is to work and struggle to give this "has/been" a
semblance of life to make it continue, move, get somewhere.
But because it is dead, and has all the fixity and permanence
of an unchangeable fact, this "I" can only go on being what
it was. Like a machine, it can only repeat itself ad nauseam,
however fast it may be run.

Thus when the dead man talks, he gives us the facts; he tells
all and says nothing. But when the living man talks, he gives
us poetry and myth. That is to say, he gives us a word from the
unconscious not from the psychoanalytical garbage^can, but
from the living world which is not to be remembered, of which
no trace can be found in history, in the record of facts, because
it is not yet dead. The world of myth is past, is "once upon a
time*', in a symbolic sense only in the sense that it is behind us,
not as time past is behind us, but as the brain which cannot
be seen is behind the eyes which see, as behind memory is that
which remembers and cannot be remembered. Thus poetry
and myth are accounts of the real world which is, as distinct
from the dead world which was, and therefore will be. The
form of myth is magical and wonderful because the real world
is magical and wonderful in the sense that we cannot pin it
down, that we do not understand it because it under/stands us.

****

Man! If you can only get that last jaw-dropping sentence right.....:shout

 

[Heathen Hammer]

How can your intellect know what to desire unless desire were already present?

Because it assessed the total sum of the available environment, measures within itself what might be achievable, then selects things from that group. With some variations, especially where love is involved.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Your Quickening description of 'your way', for one, tells me that you don't.

It's interesting, and by 'interesting' I mean a bit sad, that a person who believes themselves enlightened, takes a joke as if it were a literal statement. I used a Highlander reference as a ridiculing response your odd 'what if' that you and i both find ourselves somehow deathless. really son, give it up and get past it.

The path IS the destination.

No it isn't. The path is an experience on the way to a destination. While I am familiar with this old saw it is yet another rather empty one. If one were never going to reach any destination there is no point in walking; one can simply experience the destination by standing still.

I suppose we can say that everything and anything one can say about reality is useless psycho-babble in the end. The only thing that is not is reality itself, which, btw, is exactly what the tao is.

No, we really cannot just say it's all psychobabble. Your psychobabble, however, is psychobabble.

You are trying to make the metaphor answer more than it is designed to do. Pragmatism is not the consideration here; virtue is. The point at which the block of wood is removed from the tree and is still uncarved is what the metaphor is all about, and nothing beyond that. It is the virtue of the uncarved condition that makes it useful, just as the empty hub of a wagon wheel makes it essential to the usefulness of the wheel.

Again, 'virtue' is undefined.
You know, at this point, I no longer care what your answer would be. There will be no meaningful contribution from you.

Because in the pursuit of our state of Identity, driven by desire, we lost touch with it. It's still there, but the din created by the ego, its desires and worldly pursuits drowns its voice out. Once the ego gains hold and is rewarded with adulation and gratification of every sort, it will do what is necessary to stay on top, further subjugating our true nature. But at some point, one will notice something is not quite right amidst all that the ego does and tries to control. It is at this point of 'unsatisfactoriness' that one will begin the phase of seeking. Once found out, the ego and its machinations will step up the ante, putting obstacles in one's way at every opportunity. The last thing it wants is to die, but unless it does, the authentic self cannot manifest itself. Once the ego is subdued, however, an awakening can occur.

The accumulation of knowledge is one way the ego shores itself up to create security for itself, but it is merely a pretense of authority; just another form of the game of one-upmanship that continues to keep man asleep.

You again failed to answer the actual question.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hm, perhaps this thread should have stayed dead. I've gone back 30+ pages and it's all just a relentless stream of garbage.

 

[Tiberius]

Neither does the Sun mean zilch to Plato's Cave Dwellers, who only see dancing shadows on the walls they firmly believe is Reality.

You must be the guy who steps out of the cave and sees the real world, only to declare, "No! This is all just more shadows!"

Who sez? They are indeed verifiable by anyone. Drop your baggage and go look for yourself with an open mind.

Then how is it that lots of people who have tried this get completely different results?

That's because you are looking at it from the outside in. I know for certain that the hara is a center of consciousness from my own direct experience, and I am not talking about digestion. Again, if you want to verify what the article I posted says, go sit in meditation and focus on the hara. Do you see why this cannot be verified via science?

If it works for you, fine. I'm happy for you. Hip hip hooray and all that. But it's still SUBJECTIVE.

I am calling it a mystery since that is what it is, at least to the rational mind. Scientists still do not know how to interpret their observations about Quantum Physics. They don't really know what a black hole really is. Nor light. Nor gravity. They know how these things behave, and they can sometimes predict their behavior, but they don't know what they actually ARE.

Neither do you.

Of course, if you really do know so much, how about you put your wonderful knowledge to use and use it to develop new technology?

I mean, your knowledge DOES work when used like this, doesn't it?

Yes, of course, but verifiable facts are not equivalent to the true nature of the universe. Verifiable facts, while nice and neat, are dead things. The universe is alive, conscious, and intelligent, so the universe is far more than the sum total of its verifiable facts.

I love this. You start by agreeing with me, then turn around and tell me that I'm wrong.

Oh, and you also made yet ANOTHER unsupported claim.

Since you have all the evidence, and I have zilch, then you should be in a position to tell me what the universe is. What is the universe, Tiberius? Are your facts the universe?

When did I say that science has all the facts? When did I say that anyone has all the facts? I am saying (listen carefully, because I want you to get this, okay?) SCIENCE IS THE BEST AND ONLY TOOL WE HAVE FOR DETERMINE FACTS.

Did'nt you say that science and its factual knowledge represents the true nature of the universe?

Glad to see you are finally starting to make some sense. Yes, science is a wonderful way to learn the truth about the universe.

Uh...no...I mean the discussion we are having now. Any discussion must occur now. None can occur in the past. There is no such thing as a discussion occurring in the past. A discussion is like music and water; they all flow only in the here and now.

When did we have the discussion about time? Are we having it now?

 

[godnotgod]

Because it assessed the total sum of the available environment, measures within itself what might be achievable, then selects things from that group. With some variations, especially where love is involved.

....all based on desire which is already present.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR]
It's interesting, and by 'interesting' I mean a bit sad, that a person who believes themselves enlightened, takes a joke as if it were a literal statement. I used a Highlander reference as a ridiculing response your odd 'what if' that you and i both find ourselves somehow deathless. really son, give it up and get past it.

Ha...ha...ha....


[/COLOR]

No it isn't. The path is an experience on the way to a destination. While I am familiar with this old saw it is yet another rather empty one. If one were never going to reach any destination there is no point in walking; one can simply experience the destination by standing still.

I don't mean it in the way you think. (ie 'old saw'). We are talking about a spiritual path, not a physical one. In this case, when one sets foot onto the path, one is already there. Standing still makes it even better.


[/COLOR]

No, we really cannot just say it's all psychobabble. Your psychobabble, however, is psychobabble.

You confuse scientific fact with what the facts are about, and that is the most 'authoritative' kind of psycho-babble, which is just so much mumbo-jumbo to boot.

The description is not the described, but I know you like to think it is.

[/COLOR]
Again, 'virtue' is undefined.
You know, at this point, I no longer care what your answer would be. There will be no meaningful contribution from you.

[/COLOR]
You again failed to answer the actual question.

I am not going to explain the obvious any further. If you want to know more, do some research on Taoism and the Uncarved Block. It's all over the internet. Bye....