The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean it can't be true if its not factual.

Facts are provable via logic and/or experiment.

Truth is not necessarily provable by such means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Provable' aside, it still must be factual. 'Proof' is a very weaselly word, and you're being weaselly, so Im just ignoring this attempt. Statement remains.

if it ain't factual, it ain't true. So 'true' and 'truth' must apply. they are not separate terms, freaky lactose man.

In the example of "I Am", besides the idea that one goes on forever, it also means that one lives always in this eternal Present Moment, which is another way of putting it. It means one's true nature is not a product of history and is not held in memory, as the self subject to fact is. "I Am" is beyond mere fact. It is an eternal truth that is verifiable via direct experience. It does not mean merely that "I exist". As you may recall, in context, Jesus said:

"Before Abraham WAS, I AM", so he is comparing his nature which emerges out of the Present, to that of Abraham, who is a historical figure, subject to birth and death. "I Am" is unborn, and so is deathless.

Yes, we both know what being was saying 'I am' in that example, but somehow you think it was Abraham saying it? No, Prophet there was asserting HE is as eternal as the God of Abraham. I didn't want to go into that with him because it's patently absurd and thus, dismissible.

If you wanna construe his Abrahamic dogma with your Tao dogma, knock yourself out, it makes no good point to the issue. 'I Am' is not beyond fact. 'Mere' fact perhaps if you imply more than, but not beyond fact itself. Either it's true or it's not. If true, then fact.

we realize that words can be factual yet untrue at the same time; a person's words may be technically correct but when inward intent is not true
And how is that accomplished, pray tell? If you are consciously lying then it's not fact. You're not stating fact, as this sentence tries to say.


. Truth is not just factually accurate,

That's was where your bullet, met your foot. Nothing more needs be said.

No, really, please, say no more.

 

[godnotgod]

But that's a factual statement.

'I Am', not 'I exist'. There is a distinct difference between mere existing and being. That difference is about conscious awareness.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, there isn't a difference. 'I am' and 'I exist' are identical statements.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This thread has by now officially become 'The Debate of the Silliness of Tao'

 

[godnotgod]

the attachment is your awareness of it, that's how. That is the attachment....

...you cannot have 'higher thought' about anything unless you consider facts about that thing.

But you see, higher 'thought' is not thought. It is to see reality as it is prior to any thought you have about it, and fact is a product of thought. There are no facts resident in reality as such. Facts only become evident where thinking occurs. Therefore, there can be no such attachment to fact in higher thought, or better, higher consciousness. Pure awareness is not thought, since thought involves some concept or idea about reality, and awareness is a simple openness of mind to what is present.

You apparently think that higher thought involves reasoning, which is true in the case of critical thinking and philosophy and metaphysics for example, but it is NOT true in higher consciousness. Higher consciousness is transcendent of Reason.

 

[godnotgod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Provable' aside, it still must be factual. 'Proof' is a very weaselly word...so Im just ignoring this attempt. Statement remains.

if it ain't factual, it ain't true. So 'true' and 'truth' must apply. they are not separate terms...

I am using the word 'fact' in the scientific sense where any fact can be demonstrated by some acceptable method of examination to be true. That water boils at a certain temperature under specific conditions is a fact. It is proven to be true by repetition of the experiment.

It does not follow that because a fact is true it automatically means that it is truth, since, as discussed, facts can be used to lie.

Yes, we both know what being was saying 'I am' in that example, but somehow you think it was Abraham saying it?

No! Where do you see that?

 

[Tiberius]

Reality supports itself. Go. See for yourself, but leave your baggage behind.

"A million people watched, but no one saw a thing!"


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?")(

Your response is based on assumptions and an analogy that has not been shown to apply to reality.

If you can demonstrate convincingly (with evidence that is testable and repeatable) that my preconceptions are leading me to the wrong idea, then I will change them.

But you have failed completely to even come close to this.

 

[godnotgod]

No, there isn't a difference. 'I am' and 'I exist' are identical statements.

No. In both Prophet's meaning and Yeshua's meaning, 'I Am' refers to universal consciousness transcendent of time, while existence refers to a limited self existing in time. The "I" in "I Am" is not the "I" of the temporal self that exists in time. That is what Prophet is saying:

Prophet: "When I say "I AM" I am stating Truth. Not fact. I'm not talking about my heart which will someday cease to beat or my brain which one day will no longer serve as the host for my consciousness. All facts fade away. Truth endures forever and so does I AM. I always have been. I will always be."

'I Am' is to have always been and to always be in the eternal Present Moment where there is no history; no record of the past. Only those who are awakened can say 'I Am'. This state of being is outside of history, hence: 'Before Abraham was, I Am'.

 

[godnotgod]

Your response is based on assumptions and an analogy that has not been shown to apply to reality.

If you can demonstrate convincingly (with evidence that is testable and repeatable) that my preconceptions are leading me to the wrong idea, then I will change them.

But you have failed completely to even come close to this.

Why'ncha just go have yourself a nice cup of tea. Just don't forget to empty your cup first, LOL

 

[godnotgod]

This thread has by now officially become 'The Debate of the Silliness of Tao'

You seem to still be attached to what you imagine to be the Tao, which is not within the sphere of factual knowledge. Hmmm? Perhaps the Tao permeates you inside and out, but you just don't know that yet. You don't understand IT, but IT sure understands YOU.

 

[Prophet]

Higher consciousness is transcendent of Reason.

I think we may disagree here. I want to describe what my own experiences have shown me.

I don't believe reason is something to be transcended, but rather perfected. Now I'm not talking about practicing reasoning. Perfect reasoning will come naturally once you successfully unattach from thought which is part of the awakening. Once you unattach from all thought, your mind immediately expands into thought and grey matter formerly held by the subconcious. You cannot reason perfectly until you illuminate your subconscious.

When I was new to the awakened world the thing that most enthralled me was how I seemingly had this other mind judging and understanding all of my thoughts, words, and actions with perfect equanimity, with no fear of what I may find out about myself or anything else.

We create the subconscious out of a need to blind ourselves from our own evil. We see our selfish action, but we must hide the real evil present in the motive. Illuminating the subconscious causes one to see his own motives in perfect clarity. This is how all ignorance is removed.

 

[PolyHedral]

You cannot reason perfectly until you illuminate your subconscious.

Friend Computer disagrees.

 

[godnotgod]

I think we may disagree here. I want to describe what my own experiences have shown me.

I don't believe reason is something to be transcended, but rather perfected. Now I'm not talking about practicing reasoning. Perfect reasoning will come naturally once you successfully unattach from thought which is part of the awakening. Once you unattach from all thought, your mind immediately expands into thought and grey matter formerly held by the subconcious. You cannot reason perfectly until you illuminate your subconscious.

When I was new to the awakened world the thing that most enthralled me was how I seemingly had this other mind judging and understanding all of my thoughts, words, and actions with perfect equanimity, with no fear of what I may find out about myself or anything else.

We create the subconscious out of a need to blind ourselves from our own evil. We see our selfish action, but we must hide the real evil present in the motive. Illuminating the subconscious causes one to see his own motives in perfect clarity. This is how all ignorance is removed.

Ha!...well, this is truly uncanny. When I posted that line, I thought for a moment: "Is this too simplistic?" I knew I could'nt get away with it.

What is meant is the reason of the thinking mind:

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa


Then there is the 'Reason' of the mind which just sees Reality as it is, without thought.

I don't believe ordinary reason can be perfected, as it is fatally flawed by duality, the 'coincidence of contradictions', which must be transcended.

But with the new vision that comes with spiritual transformation of the mind, one can use perfect vision and perfect understanding to transform ordinary language in such a way which points to a higher state.

As I recall, the Buddha talked about delving all the way down to the very bottom of the subconscious mind, bringing it all up to the light.

In Jungian psychology, that which is hidden from view and stored in the subconscious is called The Shadow, negative images which we tend to project onto others. The classic example of Shadow is Hitler's use of the label untermenschen (sub-human) which he foisted onto the Jews in a national sense. Once dehumanized, it was easy to render them expendable.

So while it may appear that we disagree on the surface, I think we are actually very much in agreement.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But you see, higher 'thought' is not thought.

then it isn't higher 'thought'. Do not use words that do not apply, sinply to make the ideas more palatable. the Christians do this often with terms like 'love' and 'mercy', and it's disingenuous when they do it too.

BTW, though, if you are cognizant of it in any manner.. it's thought..

It is to see reality as it is prior to any thought you have about it, and fact is a product of thought.

You cannot see without thought, since sight is a function of the brain's interpretation of visual stimulus.

There are no facts resident in reality as such. Facts only become evident where thinking occurs. Therefore, there can be no such attachment to fact in higher thought, or better, higher consciousness. Pure awareness is not thought, since thought involves some concept or idea about reality, and awareness is a simple openness of mind to what is present.

Fanciful but false. Objects and events exist independent of a consciousness to discern them. the universe does not depend on us.

You apparently think that higher thought involves reasoning, which is true in the case of critical thinking and philosophy and metaphysics for example, but it is NOT true in higher consciousness. Higher consciousness is transcendent of Reason.

Empty assertion.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You seem to still be attached to what you imagine to be the Tao, which is not within the sphere of factual knowledge. Hmmm? Perhaps the Tao permeates you inside and out, but you just don't know that yet. You don't understand IT, but IT sure understands YOU.

Im not attached to any of it.
It's blatant nonsense.
Presume all the magic you wish of your imaginary Tao. It's a child's exercise at best, because it presumes yourself to be right while being shown to be wrong, simply for one-upsmanship. It [the Tao] would need to be aware to understand me, based on facts about me.

If I am unaware of what the Tao is, blame your representation.

 

[Prophet]

Hi godnotgod:

Words are only sounds. It is the meaning behind them which is important. You demonstrate comprehension of this Truth.

I agree that our disagreement is not real.

 

[cottage]

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



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.



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.





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.



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.

.

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.



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.

You said the use of ‘I’ and ‘my mind’ is ‘purely conventional’, but if it is a convention then it is one that cannot be avoided. For you are constantly referring to ‘illusory’ things, which are necessary in order to make your argument. And that’s the rub, for the contingent world need not exist, but has to exist to enable your other supposed state to exist, despite your saying they are one and the same thing. For no matter that you say the contingent world is only an illusion it is none the less true that you must escape the contingent world of facts in order to find your ‘true reality’. But whileDescartes’ ‘I’ remains elusive, it doesn’t mean there are no minds, for even mysticism requires prior thought and deliberation because everything is mind-dependent, and where there are minds there is thinking and where there is thinking the rules of thought apply. To speak of ‘understanding the true nature of reality’ implies logic and reason. So in what way does ‘true reality’ have a ‘nature’, and how is to be understood (‘understanding’ is an act of cognition)? And if a thing has a nature it is intelligible. Also, a criterion of truth cannot be the thing disputed unless it is self-evident, i.e. demonstrable, as an intuitive truth (thought and logic again!). Otherwise it is simply a perception or imagination with all their attendant difficulties and dubious veracity.

The fish/mammal example has nothing at all to do with facts. Fish or mammals don’t need to exist and may not exist. It is the logical relationship that necessarily obtains, not their physical existence or non-existence. This is the same as with ‘true reality’: it follows that if there is ‘true reality’ (necessary existence) then sense data or facts cannot lead us to knowledge, and that, self-evidently, is a belief that would be true. But in your case you’ve no argument or anything at all to show what you claim is more than a simple belief.

And I’m not, as you seem to have implied, trying to think my way into your supposed ‘true reality’. Actually I happen to think such a thing is a fiction, especially so because of the lack of any substance in your arguments, which has convinced me transcending the world of experience is simply a belief, although I accept that you honestly believe it is in someway possible. You said: ‘to know that something is illusory, you would have to know what is not-illusory, and that would be true reality’. Well, we do! For a priori truths are certain and they cannot without self-contradiction be false. But any thing we can conceive as existent we can conceive as non-existent, and true reality (or any ontological entity) can be conceived to not exist. Therefore the only true reality is that in which logic obtains. And you have still to answer my question properly. I asked you to provide information, concerning the world that is not available from facts about the world? (I can expand on the question for you if it isn’t clear.) And now I’m also asking you what is it that is ‘readily apparent’ and true because it cannot be false, since you’ve no way of knowing that the dream you wake up in isn’t itself just a dream. Descartes’ anomaly still holds. So…how do you know?

To make a claim of knowing ‘true reality’ you would need to know what it actually is, but I’m confident in saying that you do not. Your argument appears to take this form: A pixie is a small creature with big ears, and pixies exist. But despite the explanations and assertions, we’ve not seen any reason to believe there is anything corresponding to a pixie. You insist there is such a mystical state of ‘true reality’, the ‘Absolute’, or the ‘miraculous world of the ‘Infinite’, but so far as intelligibility is concerned, all you’ve done is to inform us of what ‘true reality’ it is not. And even your explanations and arguments to that end depend disappointingly upon the uncertainties of physical world, which are already universally acknowledged. If a thing is necessarily existent then it is not contingent upon anything else, but your arguments have not shown this to be so, and in fact the case you make is back-to-front, or rather I should say bottom up, being absolutely reliant on the very thing you say is illusory and without which you would have no case to make at all.

In post 1172 you asked this of another contributor: “I keep asking you to show me how it [science?] has revealed the true nature of reality, but you fail to provide an answer.”I think it is reasonable to ask the same question of you, substituting ‘enlightenment’ for science.

 

[godnotgod]

then it isn't higher 'thought'. Do not use words that do not apply, sinply to make the ideas more palatable. the Christians do this often with terms like 'love' and 'mercy', and it's disingenuous when they do it too.

I suppose I need to spell it out:

YOUR allusion to the discussion of higher consciousnes as 'higher thought', is not thought. It is higher consciousness.

BTW, though, if you are cognizant of it in any manner.. it's thought..

There is a state of conscious awareness that is thought-less. Most people are not aware of this state as their minds are always moving with both thought and the attachment of self to thought.

You cannot see without thought, since sight is a function of the brain's interpretation of visual stimulus.

The seeing I am referring to is not visual seeing, but insight.

Fanciful but false. Objects and events exist independent of a consciousness to discern them. the universe does not depend on us.

There are no such things as objects or events separate from the universe. A 'wave' on the sea's surface is always part of the sea. If anything, it is the universe that is 'objecting' and 'eventing', just as the sea is 'waving'.

But Quantum Physics proves that an observer is part of the universe's 'objecting' and 'eventing' since the 'observer' is the universe itself. An electron that is not being observed does not exist as a particle at all, but has a wave-like property covering the areas of probability where it could be found. Once the electron is observed, the wave function collapses and the electron becomes a particle.

'Objects' and 'events' are conceptual, just as facts are. They are not resident in reality as such. But because the tendency of the rational mind is to freeze what it sees in an attempt to 'understand' it, it conceptualizes and encapsulates in such a manner as to think of them as real things. There are no such things as 'waves', for example, and what we call 'things' are all interconnected and interdependent to every-'thing' else.

Empty assertion.

Enlightenment is not realized via reasoning; the pathway is an intuitive one.

 

[F0uad]

Religious Person: Cannot prove god exist physically
Atheist Person: Cannot prove god doesn't exist physically

Religious Person: according to scripture goes to heaven
Atheist Person: according to scripture goes to hell

Religious Person: According to Atheist ''beliefs'' goes no-where
Atheist Person: According to Atheist ''Beliefs'' goes no-where


Religious person wins...: hamster :
Its saver to be religious then not religious

 

[godnotgod]

You said the use of ‘I’ and ‘my mind’ is ‘purely conventional’, but if it is a convention then it is one that cannot be avoided. For you are constantly referring to ‘illusory’ things, which are necessary in order to make your argument. And that’s the rub, for the contingent world need not exist, but has to exist to enable your other supposed state to exist, despite your saying they are one and the same thing.

No. The Absolute is not dependent upon the contingent world to exist, but the contingent world is dependent upon the Absolute to exist. The Absolute has no opposite. That is why it is called the Absolute and not the Relative.

The only reason any 'argument' is being made at all is due to the fact that the contingent world is not understood to be illusory. If everyone knew that the contingent world were illusory, we would all be enlightened, which we are anyway. We all know what the true state of reality is, but we choose to pretend not to. It's simply that we have forgotten that we are pretending. That is the way the game is set up. There is no way to figure out what true reality is because you already know what it is. The only way to remember that you know is to awaken. When you do, you will realize that you were seeing two, when there was only really one. Your realization has nothing to do with logic, thought, or mind.

For no matter that you say the contingent world is only an illusion it is none the less true that you must escape the contingent world of facts in order to find your ‘true reality’.

No. There is nothing to escape from or anywhere you must go to find 'true reality'. All that is necessary is to awaken right here, right now. You don't 'find' true reality; it is already right in front of you. You yourself are it.

Imagine that you were raised from infancy wearing contact lenses that made you see double, and that such lenses were undetectable, so that you never knew of their presence. You are convinced that the world is actually the way you see it through those lenses. One day, they dissolve away, and you now see the world as it is, as one. There is no place you had to go, no thinking you had to do, in order to go from illusion to reality. It is simply a matter of how you see things.

"Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is, Enlightenment) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters."
Wei-hsin

But whileDescartes’ ‘I’ remains elusive, it doesn’t mean there are no minds, for even mysticism requires prior thought and deliberation because everything is mind-dependent, and where there are minds there is thinking and where there is thinking the rules of thought apply. To speak of ‘understanding the true nature of reality’ implies logic and reason.

'Mind' is a self-created principle. The mystical experience is one that occurs without thought, without mind. That is why, in Rinzai Zen, for example, a koan is utilized which 'bursts the bag' of the rational mind.

So in what way does ‘true reality’ have a ‘nature’, and how is to be understood (‘understanding’ is an act of cognition)? And if a thing has a nature it is intelligible.

Do you understand your own nature?

Also, a criterion of truth cannot be the thing disputed unless it is self-evident, i.e. demonstrable, as an intuitive truth (thought and logic again!). Otherwise it is simply a perception or imagination with all their attendant difficulties and dubious veracity.

The fish/mammal example has nothing at all to do with facts. Fish or mammals don’t need to exist and may not exist. It is the logical relationship that necessarily obtains, not their physical existence or non-existence. This is the same as with ‘true reality’: it follows that if there is ‘true reality’ (necessary existence) then sense data or facts cannot lead us to knowledge, and that, self-evidently, is a belief that would be true. But in your case you’ve no argument or anything at all to show what you claim is more than a simple belief.

And I’m not, as you seem to have implied, trying to think my way into your supposed ‘true reality’. Actually I happen to think such a thing is a fiction, especially so because of the lack of any substance in your arguments, which has convinced me transcending the world of experience is simply a belief, although I accept that you honestly believe it is in someway possible. You said: ‘to know that something is illusory, you would have to know what is not-illusory, and that would be true reality’. Well, we do! For a priori truths are certain and they cannot without self-contradiction be false. But any thing we can conceive as existent we can conceive as non-existent, and true reality (or any ontological entity) can be conceived to not exist. Therefore the only true reality is that in which logic obtains. And you have still to answer my question properly. I asked you to provide information, concerning the world that is not available from facts about the world? (I can expand on the question for you if it isn’t clear.) And now I’m also asking you what is it that is ‘readily apparent’ and true because it cannot be false, since you’ve no way of knowing that the dream you wake up in isn’t itself just a dream. Descartes’ anomaly still holds. So…how do you know?

To make a claim of knowing ‘true reality’ you would need to know what it actually is, but I’m confident in saying that you do not. Your argument appears to take this form: A pixie is a small creature with big ears, and pixies exist. But despite the explanations and assertions, we’ve not seen any reason to believe there is anything corresponding to a pixie. You insist there is such a mystical state of ‘true reality’, the ‘Absolute’, or the ‘miraculous world of the ‘Infinite’, but so far as intelligibility is concerned, all you’ve done is to inform us of what ‘true reality’ it is not. And even your explanations and arguments to that end depend disappointingly upon the uncertainties of physical world, which are already universally acknowledged. If a thing is necessarily existent then it is not contingent upon anything else, but your arguments have not shown this to be so, and in fact the case you make is back-to-front, or rather I should say bottom up, being absolutely reliant on the very thing you say is illusory and without which you would have no case to make at all.

If you think that the world consists of separate things and events in time, then you are in delusion; if you understand, via seeing things as they are, that there are no things or events in time, then you are seeing the true nature of reality.

In post 1172 you asked this of another contributor: “I keep asking you to show me how it [science?] has revealed the true nature of reality, but you fail to provide an answer.”I think it is reasonable to ask the same question of you, substituting ‘enlightenment’ for science.[/QUOTE]

Apples and oranges. Factual evidence cannot be provided for my argument, but the other contributor made the claim that science has indeed revealed the true nature of reality. I was merely prompting him to bring it.

For anyone to get a handle on what I am claiming, they need to see it for themselves. It is experiential on a first-hand basis. All I can do is to point my finger to it. What most people do instead of looking to see, is to attack my finger.

Here, please spend some time here:

http://sped2work.tripod.com/AllThingsZen.html