The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

I never made such a claim; I merely indicated that science is in the wrong hands, is mis-directed, and therefore has its priorities in the wrong place.

And you won't get any argument from me. However, that is not the impression your post gave, and even if that's what you meant, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

True nature of reality = the way things actually are, as compared to how we perceive them to be.

And, pray tell, how do you know that what we perceive things to be is wrong?

Any response is irrelevant to the issue, which is that you are an intelligent entity that emerges from an intelligent universe ala orange and an orange tree. That we can say particular things about an orange or about a human that differ from those about their source does not invalidate the source of your intellect, nor the source of the flavor of oranges.

The universe is intelligent? Or is it that some of the compoents of the universe are intelligent? If I take a piece of the universe at random, will it have intelligence?

It does not explain anything. Scientists admit they don't understand what QM is, as it upsets everything we have come to know via classical logic.

So now you are saying that QM doesn't explain anything?

I honestly have no idea how to discuss this with you if you are this ignorant.

QM does not address that question. Are you confusing 'reality' with the phenomenal world?

Are you confusing reality with an imaginary world?

If you see my point perfectly well, you would have understood it. But because your brain is stuffed up with Holy Science, you see only rubbish, since your Holy Science tells you it is the one true faith, no others need apply. In psychology, we call that the projection of Shadow.

My god you're arrogant! You really think that everyone MUST agree with you? You;ve already demonstrated a huge amount of ignorance about science, why should I believe you have the truth about anything?

I see. So "I" is the chauffeur in the cockpit driving the body around, is it? He looks strangely familiar to that boogeyman we thought was under the bed as children.

re: 'location of the "I" of a person: what's that you say? a person possesses his "I"? You have stated that this "I" is located in the brain, but now that there is a person whom it is a part of? Where is this mystery 'person' you speak of? Perhaps 'only the Shadow knows'...nyah ha ha ha.....:biglaugh:

My goodness, how can you say this sort of thing seriously?

Is your consciousness in your arm? Your feet? No. Your consciousness is held in your brain. It is formed from from all the little teeny tiny brain cells working together. Get it?

Thinking already occurs in the brain. Are you saying that the brain creates a thinker of thoughts called "I"? To what end? Is it a willful act on the part of the cells? "hey, Joe! let's get together with the other guys on Saturday night and make an "I" thingie. We can call him "I-zen-stein", and then, just for the hell of it, give him the idea that he actually exists....ha ha ha ha ha:biglaugh:

What can I say in response to this stupidity?

What is the height, weight, color, and taste of this thing you call "I"? You say it is formed by the brain; once formed, where does it reside in the brain? And what is it's composition? Is it, perhaps green cheddar?

Are you blind, or do you just not pay attention to what I wrote. I stated VERY CLEARLY that the consciousness is formed from the INTERACTION BETWEEN BRAIN CELLS. Do you want me to put it in bigger writing so you won't miss it?

Uh...and the 'special result' is...what?

A conscious mind. Duh.

 

[godnotgod]

You want a plain response? I could make no sense of your question.

I apologize for the unwarranted hostility. I guess I'm just getting tired of this crap. Tired of not being understood.

My response to your overall post was a positive one, meaning I did understand your message, for the most part. The only part I did not quite get was your statement:

"I cannot over-stress how opposed to this I am."

I did'nt quite get what it is you are opposed to.

Sorry if I was ambiguous.

You were talking about the observer's effect on the observed in Quantum Physics. The question is simple, I think:

'Who, or what, is it that is observing the observation?

 

[godnotgod]

Oh please. Cutting edge astrophysics is not confirming your Orwellian drivel.

Orwell was Buddhist?

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?

Dr. Michio Kaku on November 24, 2010

[edited]

"How can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time."

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

also: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGubWp_d18

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, and your gabble does not coincide with the article.

Can we just get to another subject, or poster, please. There's literally been quite enough of this ****. Scores of pages now.

 

[godnotgod]

Aw, don't be so butthurt. And look at you, trying to make up some false hierarchy of who can dismiss something. lol.

Oh, shush!

You dismiss science whole cloth, so its not like you have any perspective in any case.

Science is OK by me, but Reality was around long before science.

Later on that one...but for now, a koan, for one, is understood without any facts attached. The understanding is completely intuitive.[/quote]

Later on that one.. because you lack an answer? Noted.

What? Are you now The Inquisitor?

FYI, 'later', refers to my intent to expand on my response.

But, you're wrong again, the koan can be understood because the concepts contained within it are factual. You must have definitions for the words in it in order for the contrasts to be examined. Try again.

OK. I should clarify something here: it is not the koan that is 'understood' at all. The koan is deliberately designed to be illogical so it can 'burst the bag', so to speak, of the way the rational mind is attempting to figure out the riddle. The koan is merely a temporary pathway that leads to a completely transformed state of conscious awareness, but is not present at that point. It is like a catalyst that is part of the chemical reaction, but is not retained. The mystical experience is never about words, symbols, concepts, etc, but about the direct apprehension of Reality itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, and your gabble does not coincide with the article.

Sorry, but it absolutely does. You just refuse to admit that there can be other valid kinds of knowledge other than 'thienthe'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, shush!

Science is OK by me, but Reality was around long before science.
.

Most of the scientists you poopoo were around much longer than you.

But, as we both know, this nonsense qualifier is wholly irrelevant.

What? Are you now The Inquisitor?
Inquisitor, the Adversary, the Antichrist. Call me what you will. Truth and truthbringers are usually hated by the unenlightened who claim wisdom for themselves via draping themselves in empty cloths. Your baby names have never bothered me.

FYI, 'later', refers to my intent to expand on my response.

FYI, it shows you cannot actually answer.

OK. I should clarify something here: it is not the koan that is 'understood' at all. The koan is deliberately designed to be illogical so it can 'burst the bag', so to speak, of the way the rational mind is attempting to figure out the riddle. The koan is merely a temporary pathway that leads to a completely transformed state of conscious awareness, but is not present at that point. It is like a catalyst that is part of the chemical reaction, but is not retained. The mystical experience is never about words, symbols, concepts, etc, but about the direct apprehension of Reality itself. [/quote]
Yet it still requires facts for a rational mind to contemplate with any validity. Sometimes the contrariness is what sparks the rational mind to understand, via humor or irony. Im sorry but you won't gobble your way past this.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry, but it absolutely does. You just refuse to admit that there can be other valid kinds of knowledge other than 'thienthe'.

Universes colliding in other dimensions is as far from 'nothing' as it gets. It's a reaction caused by events elsewhere.

 

[Prophet]

My response to your overall post was a positive one, meaning I did understand your message, for the most part. The only part I did not quite get was your statement:

"I cannot over-stress how opposed to this I am."

I did'nt quite get what it is you are opposed to.

Sorry if I was ambiguous.

You were talking about the observer's effect on the observed in Quantum Physics. The question is simple, I think:

'Who, or what, is it that is observing the observation?

I wasn't really talking about the observer's effect in quantum physics. I was talking about mere observations being confused for advances in understanding. I probably should have specified the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[godnotgod]

And, pray tell, how do you know that what we perceive things to be is wrong?

Not so much 'wrong', as 'incapable'. We perceive the phenomenal world via of sight, smell, sound, touch, and taste, which, in and of themselves, sometimes do not render accurate information, or the information is incorrectly interpreted by the brain. We see a rope is a snake; hear something that sounds like something else; etc., etc. But beyond that, the five senses cannot tell us what the true nature of the phenomenal world is. They are not designed to do that. We need to transcend the five senses in order to apprehend reality via a higher state of awareness.

The universe is intelligent? Or is it that some of the compoents of the universe are intelligent? If I take a piece of the universe at random, will it have intelligence?

It is not possible to separate a 'piece' of the universe. Nothing can ever be separated from the universe. 'Separation' is purely conceptual.

The universe is intelligent in its entirely, through and through. It's just that we have conceptualized what intelligence should be, thereby creating an arbitrary and illusory division of 'intelligent' vs. 'unintelligent'.

So now you are saying that QM doesn't explain anything?

I honestly have no idea how to discuss this with you if you are this ignorant.

I should have been more explicit: the tack is between the mechanics and the nature of things.

Are you confusing reality with an imaginary world?

What we ordinarily call 'reality' is not what it seems to be. QM has shown us that. Mysticism has shown us that. We see things through the filter of the conditioned mind, which renders a false view, that we think represents reality. Most people think the phenomenal world alone is reality. They do not take the background into account.

My god you're arrogant! You really think that everyone MUST agree with you? You;ve already demonstrated a huge amount of ignorance about science, why should I believe you have the truth about anything?

Excuse me, but YOU are the one who constantly and conveniently dismisses what I am saying as 'rubbish', and that is extremely arrogant AND ignorant. Whenever I criticize science, I always support my statements. I don't just call it 'rubbish'. In fact, I am only saying that it cannot provide the answer to the true nature of reality. I am not saying it is worthless.

You are the one who admitted that you saw my point perfectly well, but you obviously did not.

My goodness, how can you say this sort of thing seriously?

Is your consciousness in your arm? Your feet? No. Your consciousness is held in your brain. It is formed from from all the little teeny tiny brain cells working together. Get it?

My goodness, how can you say this sort of thing seriously?

You have been thoroughly brain-washed in your Western ideas about consciousness, which has an anal fixation about THE BIG BAD BRAIN! OOOOOOH! And what is it that is telling you that? Why, De Brain, of course! Well, how convenient! And you believe it!

If you were really using your intellect properly, you would sense that every cell of your body is alive and conscious, but being mental, that is almost an impossibility.

What can I say in response to this stupidity?

The stupidity is that the brain cells produce the "I".

Are you blind, or do you just not pay attention to what I wrote. I stated VERY CLEARLY that the consciousness is formed from the INTERACTION BETWEEN BRAIN CELLS. Do you want me to put it in bigger writing so you won't miss it?

Hey, you are the one claiming that "I" can be measured, and that it resides in the brain. Now you want to call it 'consciousness'. They are not the same thing. Besides that, no, the cells do not create consciousness. Consciousness is non-local. It (the Intelligent Universe from which you and your brain both emerged) literally creates the brain. What proof is there of this? For one, meditation has been shown to increase the thickness of the cerebral cortex:

Meditation increases brain gray matter
May 12, 2009

That's the finding from a group of researchers at UCLA who used high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to scan the brains of people who meditate. In a study published in the journal NeuroImage and currently available online, the researchers report that certain regions in the brains of long-term meditators were larger than in a similar control group.

Meditation increases brain gray matter

Beyond that, the brain is not the sole center of consciousness. The heart and hara are at least two other important centers, the hara considered by many to be the real center, and not the brain.

A conscious mind. Duh.

There is no proof that the brain cells produce any such thing, or that any such mind actually exists. It is just a theory.

 

[godnotgod]

Most of the scientists you poopoo were around much longer than you.

But, as we both know, this nonsense qualifier is wholly irrelevant.

Scientists are OK by me, but they still cannot use their science to tell us what the true nature of reality is, which was still around long before they.

Inquisitor, the Adversary, the Antichrist. Call me what you will. Truth and truthbringers are usually hated by the unenlightened who claim wisdom for themselves via draping themselves in empty cloths.

Yes indeed. They sometimes come in the form of The Inquisitor who keep tabs on the rest of us.

FYI, it shows you cannot actually answer.

Stop making foolish assumptions.

Yet it still requires facts for a rational mind to contemplate with any validity. Sometimes the contrariness is what sparks the rational mind to understand, via humor or irony.

Koans are illogical riddles. If anything, they contain conflicting information, which creates the paradox in the first place.

 

[godnotgod]

I was talking about mere observations being confused for advances in understanding.

I think I we are in agreement on that point.

So that is why you are calling it 'pseudo-science', and why you are comparing it to religious fundamentalism, correct?

 

[PolyHedral]

No! It is three things of the same name! How do we know that? Because each one is observant of the others in a subject/object relationship, all of which is completely illusory.

That'd only make sense if a thing couldn't observe itself. Not to mention that you used three different names in your post, so "the same name" doesn't make much sense.

It all has to do with the delusion that we are somehow separate egos acting upon the world.

That's not a delusion. It's an assumption made to simplify things so that we can predict the future.

So "I" exists in the brain. Is the rest of the body then 'not-I'?

Depends on context.

That is a long ways from the brain actually creating an entity called "I".

"I" is a label, not an entity.

PS: and if you have an "I", which "I" is it that has it? and which one is it that knows this?

This one. They're all the same entity.

Furthermore, do you realize that "I" cannot exist without the label "I", which is to say that "I" is purely conceptual. It has no basis in fact. To conjecture that it does is the same mental process as to conjecture the existence of a creator-God.

Discrete entities don't have a basis in fact, when it comes right down to it. The only thing that actually exists is the evolving wavefunction.

 

[cottage]

I am giving you what my mind knows.



Firstly, 'true knowledge', or the insight into the the way things actually are, as opposed to how they appear, is not an attainment. You don't 'get' true knowledge. It's already present. Only its realization is necessary. Belief only comes about when the mind begins to conceptualize what it thinks it knows about reality. This discursive mind then begins to attempt to 'grasp' at reality in order to 'know' it, but the more it grasps, the more elusive does the piercing into the true nature of reality become. This is the mind of science and religion.



Your logic is faulty here: if something is true of the world as knowledge, it excludes belief.



Some of the greatest discoveries have been made this way, and spiritual awakening can be sudden and spontaneous .



In the rope/snake metaphor, once the illusion of the snake is SEEN, it is fully understood as illusion. What allows this to occur is the simultaneous presence of the mind which sees things as they actually are. So that knowledge is already present; it is not acquired knowledge. To know what it is to make a mistake is the presence of the enlightened state, which sees immediately into the nature of the experience rather than the facts surrounding it.



The nature of reality is always the same. The only thing 'new' is in how the world is expressed, and that is through great variety. But the underlying source from which all variety emerges is changeless. Factual knowledge is about the details of variety, but it ignores their source. It is like saying that the figure in the example I provided can exist independently of the field against which it is seen and understood as a dancer. It cannot.

What facts give us is not new information about the world, but old information, as all facts are based on memory from the past. That is exactly why facts can make predictions. But to see things as they are as they are unfolding is to see what is fresh, new, and alive. When we see things as they are, we are seeing both figure and ground simultaneously.



Reality itself is the answer to both questions.

This is not a 'world of facts'; that world exists only in the mind. Facts are not components of the world, but are descriptions ABOUT the world, either in terms of its characteristics and/or its behavior.

The very first line of your response to me (“I am giving you what my mind knows.”) alludes to two assertions that are without necessary foundation: the personal pronoun ‘I’, and ‘my mind’; and it also presumes to establish truth by those means (‘knows’). We are already agreed that personal identity can be considered suspect (‘illusory’), therefore [your] ‘mind’ and what it claims to know is on that account also illusory. But there seems to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by ‘knowledge, since you appear to believe it can found within the experiential world, as in ‘some of the greatest discoveries can be made that way’ [through contingent means]! Please note: we’re talking about knowing that, and not knowing how as in experimental reasoning (science), which can only look to probabilities and not certainty.

I said in order to be certain of a thing you have to know what it is to make a mistake. Now, forgive me, but you replied with a facile answer, which was to the effect that the enlightened state sees whether there is a mistake!! I also asked you to provide information concerning the world that is not available from facts about the world, and once again you replied in simplistic, superficial terms. We are already aware that perceptions can be erroneous and we acknowledge the world’s contingency, and therefore we accept that whatever is might not be. So allow me to ask again, in what way do you presume to know that what you claim to know is not mistaken? How do you know you are not living a dream? And you came up with nothing when I asked by what criterion of truth you claim to know reality. It would seem that you are expounding an appealing idea, but one that is without truth or substance – a mere belief in other words. And on that subject I have something else to say. You said if something is true of the world [knowledge] then it ‘excludes belief.’ But that is incorrect. The belief that a fish is not a mammal is self-evidently justified; it is therefore a true belief (whether or not there are any fish or any mammals). In your case the belief is not justified. You are arguing that you see something that is true and you know it to be true because you see that it is true. So it is neither justified nor true but argues in a circle.

As I see it the basis of your argument consists entirely of speculative assertions together with an attack on sense data. The former is a non-demonstrable metaphysical explanation, and the latter (which is hardly revelatory!) cannot be used to find for a mystical conclusion by default.

I have been through most of your posts on this subject and can find not the least reason to believe you have an ability to know ‘true reality’ (if there is such a thing).

My two questions remain unanswered, but I suspect that is because they are unanswerable.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Stop making foolish assumptions.

it's not an assumption if it's born out by evidence. As in this case.

 

[godnotgod]

it's not an assumption if it's born out by evidence. As in this case.

Your High Inquisitor is mistaken.

 

[godnotgod]

That'd only make sense if a thing couldn't observe itself. Not to mention that you used three different names in your post, so "the same name" doesn't make much sense.

'self' and 'other' are two. all 3 are 'me'. Then there are the many varieties of 'me' as the do-er, such as: the thinker of thoughts, the worker of work; the writer of writing; the player of play; the fixer; the walker; the nailer; and on and on and on, where no agent of the action is real. There is only the action itself.

That's not a delusion. It's an assumption made to simplify things so that we can predict the future.

What?!! By adding an ego you are complicating, not simplifying. So why is an ego required to predict the future?

It is typical of delusion that one does'nt know he is deluded, and that accounts for most of mankind. It is, unfortunately, our lot in life.

Depends on context.

I see. So sometimes you're 'not all there'. That is what we call an illusion.

"I" is a label, not an entity.

That's what I've been telling you; that "I" is not real; it is self-conceptual only.

This one. They're all the same entity.

A case of multiple personalities, I suppose. This could be serious... So tell me, son; how long have you been experiencing these multiple "me's" in your head you say are all the same entity? Must get a bit crowded in there, what with all those "me's" clamoring for attention. How on earth do you maintain decorum?...Look! There's one attempting to jump ship through your left ear now! 'ME OVERBOARD!...ME OVERBOARD!...ALL ME'S ON DECK!...ALL ME'S ON DECK!' LOL :biglaugh:

Discrete entities don't have a basis in fact, when it comes right down to it. The only thing that actually exists is the evolving wavefunction.

Good. So it's settled: there is no such thing as "I".

 

[godnotgod]

... describe how you would ever understand something that did not have at least one fact attached?

By seeing directly into its nature prior to the attachment of any facts. It's called metaphysic.

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.

Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts

...and when the mind is 'not trying to grasp or define what it knows', it means there are no facts involved, since facts are part of that knowledge which is 'elaborated by reflective thought'.

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]hCOJnIysQ1A[/youtube]
Alan Watts - What Is It To See? - YouTube

The Hindus say: 'Tas atvam asi'...'Thou art That', which is a Quantum kind of observation, and which this video is also essentially saying, which, of course, is what the East has been quietly telling us for centuries. Of course, we did not listen, since we are a culture that needs 'facts' for verification of such nonsense. But when you learn to recognize the nonsense as the true nature of Reality itself, you will embrace it without question and in the spirit of Absolute Joy. That is what we call faith.

Belief clings;

Faith lets go

It is the mind of innocency, which simply sees things as they are, without judgment.

 

[godnotgod]

The very first line of your response to me (“I am giving you what my mind knows.&#8221 alludes to two assertions that are without necessary foundation: the personal pronoun ‘I’, and ‘my mind’; and it also presumes to establish truth by those means (‘knows&#8217. We are already agreed that personal identity can be considered suspect (‘illusory&#8217, therefore [your] ‘mind’ and what it claims to know is on that account also illusory. But there seems to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by ‘knowledge, since you appear to believe it can found within the experiential world, as in ‘some of the greatest discoveries can be made that way’ [through contingent means]! Please note: we’re talking about knowing that, and not knowing how as in experimental reasoning (science), which can only look to probabilities and not certainty.

Use of "I" and "my mind" are purely conventional. I thought you would understand.

I said in order to be certain of a thing you have to know what it is to make a mistake. Now, forgive me, but you replied with a facile answer, which was to the effect that the enlightened state sees whether there is a mistake!!

No! You are adding something that is not there! The light is already illuminating. It does not willfully look for error! The mistake shows up due to the fact that the light is already there.

I also asked you to provide information concerning the world that is not available from facts about the world, and once again you replied in simplistic, superficial terms. We are already aware that perceptions can be erroneous and we acknowledge the world’s contingency, and therefore we accept that whatever is might not be. So allow me to ask again, in what way do you presume to know that what you claim to know is not mistaken? How do you know you are not living a dream?

Oh, but we ARE living a dream, but when you wake up IN the dream, that you have been dreaming, (and that others are still dreaming) becomes readily apparent.

And you came up with nothing when I asked by what criterion of truth you claim to know reality. It would seem that you are expounding an appealing idea, but one that is without truth or substance – a mere belief in other words. And on that subject I have something else to say. You said if something is true of the world [knowledge] then it ‘excludes belief.’ But that is incorrect. The belief that a fish is not a mammal is self-evidently justified; it is therefore a true belief (whether or not there are any fish or any mammals). In your case the belief is not justified. You are arguing that you see something that is true and you know it to be true because you see that it is true. So it is neither justified nor true but argues in a circle.

You are using fact as an example, while I am referring to the nature of things. The criterion for understanding the true nature of reality is reality itself, which contains no beliefs about itself, because belief requires thought, and to apprehend reality directly is to do so without thought, and therefore, without belief. In fact, to apprehend reality directly, belief must be discarded, as it is in the way.

A belief as to what a fish is can be true or false. Facts show it not to be a mammal, which, in your example, also happened to be what was believed to be true, which entails a 50/50 chance.

As I see it the basis of your argument consists entirely of speculative assertions together with an attack on sense data. The former is a non-demonstrable metaphysical explanation, and the latter (which is hardly revelatory!) cannot be used to find for a mystical conclusion by default.

It will remain non-demonstrable as long as you continue to try to go about it via the thinking mind. The latter must be completely transcended to allow for another kind of awareness to come into play. It will not come into play as long as you are using it in your search. Seeing into the nature of reality transcends both sense perception and rational thought. One's previous method is completely overturned. You cannot arrive there via of thinking it through, as you seem to be trying to do, simply because you are already there, but you don't see that you are.

I have been through most of your posts on this subject and can find not the least reason to believe you have an ability to know ‘true reality’ (if there is such a thing)

.

If true reality does not exist, then everything is illusory. But to know that something is illusory, you would have to know what is not-illusory, and that would be true reality.

My two questions remain unanswered, but I suspect that is because they are unanswerable.

Ultimately, no one can answer them for you. That you will have to discover on your own. Some people require total exhaustion and frustration of their current methods to arrive at a place where they finally see something they simply did not see before, or more correctly, chose to previously ignore. Phd's have been known to break down in tears, sobbing on their meditation mats, in trying to 'figure it out' via their intellect. That is how simple and humbling the experience of transformation can be.

All of the methods that the rational mind can come up with fall short of their goal because they are attempts to encapsulate reality, to freeze it in some doctrine, concept, belief, ideology etc, which simply cannot be done. The rational mind is attempting to 'make sense' of a reality it does not really understand by creating these substitutes.

You know, when an archer prepares to shoot at the target, he never aims directly at the bull's eye. He would never hit it if he did.
*****

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"