The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

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

...except that the religious person, always anticipating reward, is'nt all here, and if you ain't all here now, you won't be all there, then. :yes::no:

You seem to be very concerned with who 'wins'. Someone once described those in heaven sitting at the edge of the battlements, peering over into the abyss below, watching the condemned writhing in agony, and thinking to themselves that they are getting exactly what they deserve. There is something psychologically and spiritually wrong with this kind of thinking that borders on the diabolical, if not on the psychotic.

 

[Prophet]

Hi godnotgod

Many awakened teachers have said the Consciousness is beyond thought. Now, I do agree with these teachers, but I do not necessarily agree when people have repeated the teaching.

Earlier we had a disagreement that amounted just to words as our meanings were the same. Now we have perhaps the same words, but I've sensed our meanings would be different.

It is possible that I have a small sample size here, but the eastern religion followers I come across seem to have a fascination with overcoming their minds. I would rather you all made friends with your minds. Being conscious of a stopped mind isn't very useful. Being fully conscious of a mind at play is divine.

By unattaching from all thought, you open your mind to consider EVERYTHING. You've said you don't reason your way to enlightenment. I consider myself proof that this statement is wrong.

If you would like, I would to be happy to share the exact reasoning that changed the way I see in private. Don't get excited or anything. It probably wouldn't work for you. We all build the cornerstone for our ego in different places. But it may give you a clue of where to look.

 

[godnotgod]

It [the Tao] would need to be aware to understand me, based on facts about me.

The Tao is as intimate to you as your breath; in fact, it is your breath. It knows more about you than you know about yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

It is possible that I have a small sample size here, but the eastern religion followers I come across seem to have a fascination with overcoming their minds. I would rather you all made friends with your minds. Being conscious of a stopped mind isn't very useful. Being fully conscious of a mind at play is divine.

Let us make the distinction here between the mind conditioned by society, which is the mind that takes life so seriously to the point that it actually stifles play, and the liberated mind which is the only mind that can freely play. So it might be said that the conditioned mind is what needs to be transformed so that the mind of the divine can come into play. Zennists make the distinction between what they call 'small mind', or 'monkey mind', and Big Mind, or Universal Mind. A 'stopped [ie; 'conditioned'] mind' is useful in that it allows the seeing into the true nature of things, and the true nature of things you and I both understand to be some kind of divine play.

(I'm glad you brought the idea of divine play up. It is an element largely ignored, but essential to any understanding of the world. I just love the following bit of divine humor:

"Shall I, a gnat, dancing in Thy Ray, DARE to be reverent?"
Coventry Patmore, The Rod, The Root, and The Flower)

By unattaching from all thought, you open your mind to consider EVERYTHING.

In effect, you are saying two things here: to stop the thinking mind so that the liberated mind can come into play. It is this liberated mind that is open to everything.

You've said you don't reason your way to enlightenment. I consider myself proof that this statement is wrong.

Well, there are two kinds of reasoning. One is ordinary reasoning via of the discriminating mind which sees all dualties in contradiction to each other. I don't see this kind of reasoning leading to the enlightened state, except where it becomes completely frustrated and exhausted of itself in paradox. Why? Because reality is a paradox to the rational mind. So it attempts to force reality to fit the conceptual in a failed attempt to 'make sense' of reality. Eventually, this arbitrary construction of the world breaks down because reality does not match the frozen concepts that the rational mind attempts to overlay onto it.

The other kind of reasoning is more intuitive and insightful.

 

[godnotgod]

Zen, Reason, Paradox and Reality

Q: Why is Zen Paradoxical?

Osho - "Because life is paradoxical and Zen is a simple mirror-reflection of life. Zen is not a philosophy. Philosophies are never paradoxical, philosophies are very logical -- because philosophies are mind-constructions. Man makes them. They are manufactured by man. They are manmade, tailored, logically arranged, comfortably arranged so that you can believe in them. All those parts which go against the construction have been dropped, rooted out, thrown away. Philosophies don't reflect life as such; they are chosen from life. They are not raw, they are cultured constructions.

Zen is paradoxical because Zen is not a philosophy. Zen is not concerned about what life is, Zen is concerned that whatsoever is should be reflected as it is. One should not choose, because the moment you choose it becomes untrue. Choice brings untruth. Don't choose, remain choiceless -- and you remain true.

Immanuel Kant said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason. And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand.

Once you understand this paradoxicality, a great silence arises in you. Then there is no choice -- there is no point in it -- then things are together.
Suddenly there is silence, there is neither good nor bad; there is only existence, with no judgement. Zen is non-judgemental, it is non-condemning, it is non-evaluating. It gives you utter freedom to be."

Osho: from "Zen The Path of Paradox", edited

 

[Prophet]

Let us make the distinction here between the mind conditioned by society, which is the mind that takes life seriously to the point that it actually stifles play, and the liberated mind which is the only mind that can freely play. So it might be said that the conditioned mind is what needs to be transformed so that the mind of the divine can come into play. Zennists make the distinction between what they call 'small mind', or 'monkey mind', and Big Mind, or Universal Mind. A 'stopped [ie; 'conditioned'] mind' is useful in that it allows the seeing into the true nature of things, and the true nature of things you and I both understand to be some kind of divine play.

What you call small mind can be described as attachment. What you call big mind is unattachment. A being possessing small mind cannot see clearly because he is deluded and believes that the thoughts that occur to him are his own essense because he ATTACHES himself to his mind.

A being who possesses big mind is freed from evil and attachment as they are the same. As this being never attaches to his mind, he is free to be aware of his thought. He does not say "I am my mind," for he knows his true, immortal essence is in the awareness that lies beyond the mind, seeing and judging thoughts the moment they enter the mind. This ability to reason without attachment is the essence of wisdom.

In effect, you are saying two things here: to stop the thinking mind so that the liberated mind can come into play. It is this liberated mind that is open to everything.

I never say to stop your mind. It's not a two part process. I am saying give up all of your attachments to your possessions, relationships, reputation, mind, etc., you will be able to think clearly and wisely regarding all of these things.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian. They had this brainwashing adage they liked to say that never gave me much comfort. "Let go, and let God!" What you said here kinda reminded me of that.

Well, there are two kinds of reasoning. One is ordinary reasoning via of the discriminating mind which sees all dualties in contradiction to each other. I don't see this kind of reasoning leading to the enlightened state, except where it becomes completely frustrated and exhausted of itself in paradox. Why? Because reality is a paradox to the rational mind. So it attempts to force reality to fit the conceptual in a failed attempt to 'make sense' of reality. Eventually, this arbitrary construction of the world breaks down because reality does not match the frozen concepts that the rational mind attempts to overlay onto it.

Ordinary reasoning = small mind = attachment
Discriminating reason = big mind = unattachment

I like to describe my ideas with as few words as possible.

The other kind of reasoning is more intuitive and insightful.

I stumbled into enlightenment when I wasn't even consciously looking for it. I was just reasoning with a genuine desire to know the truth about myself, and I ended up finding out that I was a hypocrite. And then I knew the Truth, and I was set free.

 

[godnotgod]

I was raised fundamentalist Christian. They had this brainwashing adage they liked to say that never gave me much comfort. "Let go, and let God!" What you said here kinda reminded me of that.

I prefer...

'Belief clings,
Faith lets go'

 

[PolyHedral]

Choice brings untruth. Don't choose, remain choiceless -- and you remain true.

How am I supposed to do that without choosing to listen to you?

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason.

Not quite. What they showed is that there are limits to reality. No school of thought will let you bypass their proofs. No method will give you results denied to science, and contradicting them is near-impossible.

That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical

Life make perfect sense to me. I think you're doing something wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

How am I supposed to do that without choosing to listen to you?

If you are consciously choosing to listen , you are not really listening. You are setting up conditions for listening when you willfully choose to listen or not listen. In other words, you are discriminating, filtering, what to listen to and what not to listen to, what to accept, and what not to accept, prior to the act of listening. Real listening does not discriminate. It only listens. When listening, just listen, nothing more. When dying, just die. When living, just live. That is all.

Not quite. What they showed is that there are limits to reality. No school of thought will let you bypass their proofs. No method will give you results denied to science, and contradicting them is near-impossible.

eh..eh..and then along came Jones.....

Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Life make perfect sense to me. I think you're doing something wrong.

'Life makes perfect sense' in what respect? This has been one of mankind's perennial questions. Most do find it a paradox, which results in metaphysical anxiety for many.

 

[godnotgod]

I stumbled into enlightenment when I wasn't even consciously looking for it. I was just reasoning with a genuine desire to know the truth about myself, and I ended up finding out that I was a hypocrite. And then I knew the Truth, and I was set free.

It is said that everyone is already enlightened; it's just that they don't realize it. So in that sense, it does'nt appear that reasoning led you to enlightenment; enlightenment itself did. You saw what you did by virtue of the light that was already there. What was probably the key was your genuine desire.

 

[PolyHedral]

If you are consciously choosing to listen to me, you are not really listening to me. You are setting up conditions for listening. Do not willfully choose to listen or not listen. When listening, just listen, nothing more. When dying, just die. When living, just live. That is all.

But I must evaluate and decide. Not doing so requires that I choose not to.

Freedom is slavery.

eh..eh..and then along came Jones.....

Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars
The article appears to be a non-sequitor, probably born out of a non-understanding of quantum mechanics.

'Life makes perfect sense' in what respect? This has been one of mankind's perennial questions. Most do find it a paradox, which results in metaphysical anxiety for many.

The contents of the universe neatly and elegantly follow from a few immutable, inviolable laws. It's true I don't know exactly what the laws are, nor exactly what the consequences are, but I know enough to explain the vast majority of what I know about.

 

[godnotgod]

But I must evaluate and decide. Not doing so requires that I choose not to.

Freedom is slavery.

You're making it much too complicated. Listen freely, then you can freely decide.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars

The article appears to be a non-sequitor, probably born out of a non-understanding of quantum mechanics.

No one yet understands Quantum Mechanics, so let's avoid hard and fast rules here. Otherwise, fundamentalism is imminent.

The contents of the universe neatly and elegantly follow from a few immutable, inviolable laws. It's true I don't know exactly what the laws are, nor exactly what the consequences are, but I know enough to explain the vast majority of what I know about.

The unfolding of the universe is one thing; life another. You were referring to life, so which is it that makes 'perfect sense'?

 

[PolyHedral]

You're making it much too complicated. Listen freely, then you can freely decide.

But I must decide to do that. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

No one yet understands Quantum Mechanics, so let's avoid hard and fast rules here. Otherwise, fundamentalism is imminent.

The hard rules of quantum mechanics are evident. A lot of people understands what it tells us, but nobody can work out what it means. However, what it tells us is the be-all and end-all in accuracy in quite a lot of places, so it would be spectacularly foolish to abandon it.

The unfolding of the universe is one thing; life another.

The latter follows on from the former. Life is just a structure built of components, with (theoretically) predictable behaviours, just like every other entity in the universe, yourself included.

 

[godnotgod]

But I must decide to do that. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Do you see now how having to have a 'decider' to decide only complicates things beyond what is necessary?

The hard rules of quantum mechanics are evident. A lot of people understands what it tells us, but nobody can work out what it means. However, what it tells us is the be-all and end-all in accuracy in quite a lot of places, so it would be spectacularly foolish to abandon it.

Until we know what it means we really don't know anything, do we?

We shall see what the scientists investigating Quantum Memory come up with.

The latter follows on from the former. Life is just a structure built of components, with (theoretically) predictable behaviours, just like every other entity in the universe, yourself included.

So when you say life makes 'perfect sense', you are talking about it's predictability. But that tells you nothing about life itself, nor the universe from which it emerged. You know the mechanics, but you don't have a clue as to the essence. Your approach smacks of reductionism, where we are 'nothing more than'. I don't buy it. There is a big difference between the 'simplistic' and the 'simple'. As Osho says,

"All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason."

All of the math and science and religion are merely superficial boring descriptions of reality that end up telling us virtually nothing and leaving a bad taste behind.

There is something far more vital going on, but you are using the wrong approach which only ends up stifling a true understanding by eviscerating it and rendering it into nice, neat little cut and dried formulae and minutiae which has nothing to do with the reality itself, and which is incapable of providing a true understanding of it. When you focus on the understanding first, the rest will make sense in light of that understanding. The reverse is not true. Dissection of a moth will not get you the nature of what 'moth' is.

 

[cottage]

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.

Remove the contingent world from your argument and you have no argument! You can only make the case for a necessary existence (which you call the ‘Absolute’) by acknowledging contingent existence. The paradox is inescapable. Your ‘Absolute’ is relative by virtue of the very definition of its meaning, and it is also necessary in the logical sense for it is only because of the world’s contingency that you are able claim to transcend it! ‘Transcend’ has no meaning if there is nothing to transcend, and ‘enlightenment’ has no purpose without the prior instantiation of the physical world. The world of facts need not exist and yet it does exist! And thus the physical world has more objective reality than your ‘true reality’, the existence of which involves no contradiction if denied. And it is no argument at all to say the ‘Absolute’ is already there because it can only be ‘there’ if the factual world is acknowledged first.

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.

You keep stating that the contingent world isn’t understood to be illusory, which amounts to saying the contingent world isn’t contingent! Perceptual errors and illusions are part of the contingent world and they are universally accepted as such, but that is not to say form and matter do not exist. A stick appears bent when placed in a pond, but that doesn’t mean there are no sticks and no ponds. And while no argument from the past can ever be an argument for the future and nothing that is must continue to be, you, along with the rest of us, accept the world of contingent facts since it allows you to lead your daily life. So if you say your realisation has nothing to do with logic, thought or mind, then that statement is clearly contradictory when understanding, reflection, and memory are necessary for you to make a case here for ‘true reality’, as you acknowledge further down the page.

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.

It’s all very well proposing a veil that makes knowledge of ‘true reality’ impossible, but you cannot do that without there being a veil. The perceptual lenses you speak of must first exist before they can be dissolved! No matter that you argue for the world ‘as it is’ already being there, the world as it appears cannot be divorced from your argument, and ‘the world as it appears’ is the world that exists in actuality.

'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.

Mind as a ‘self-created principle’ doesn’t make any sense at all, not from your perspective or from mine! And you can’t speak of ‘experience’ or knowledge without there being an experiencer or a knower; something is receiving, being enlightened or becoming aware, and then afterwards the something is (attempting) to communicate the experience. Therefore the concept of mind is inescapable.

You asked ‘Do you understand your own nature’. My answer will be the same as yours: the contingent world of facts and phenomena. Now perhaps you would care to consider my question: In what way does ‘true reality’ have a ‘nature’, and how is to be understood (‘understanding’ is an act of cognition)? (For if a thing has a nature it is intelligible.)

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

Reading the above passage, where you say ‘If you think the world consists of separate things and events in time then you are in delusion’, the first thing that strikes me is that it is entirely devoid of any substance, as in your claim to see things as they are, for if that were the case then this discussion would have concluded many posts ago. ‘The concept of ‘things in themselves’ (noumena), to use Kant’s term, isn’t a logical impossibility but if the claim is to know the transcendental object then you must know you cannot be mistaken in what you know. And, once again, your every argument begins in the phenomenal world, so how can you be certain you are not dreaming a dream? There is no way that you possible can, without finding for the conclusion in advance, which is special pleading (or begging the question).

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. 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.

But the point I was making here is that you demanded certainty in the case made by the questioner and yet you see fit to exclude it in your own arguments. So I think it reasonable to ask how enlightenment has revealed the true nature of reality? To be clear, I’m asking what is it that enlightenment reveals, independent of the world of facts?

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.

To be frank I think that it is because there is nothing apart from the finger, and the finger itself is only speculation and a subscription to others’ writings and ideas. There is nothing different or unique about this and it is something we see regularly on this forum. Theists say, for example, that ‘You must open your heart’ (whatever that is supposed to mean), and spiritualists often provide a reading list instead of articulating their own supposed knowledge. I think this is a disposition, wanting something to be the case and hoping to see one’s ideas reflected in other people’s words. Supposed revelatory knowledge, normally cloaked in mystery, which by the use of prescribed methodology ordinary folk can obtain if only they were to listen to the gurus, is as old as the human race itself. And yet nobody yet has been able to explain what it is or how it cannot be doubted. Humans like order and rules, even if they are not always understood, and mysticism’s worldly-superior pronouncements are an attraction to many who have the inclination or disposition.

 

[godnotgod]

To be frank I think that it is because there is nothing apart from the finger, and the finger itself is only speculation and a subscription to others’ writings and ideas. There is nothing different or unique about this and it is something we see regularly on this forum. Theists say, for example, that ‘You must open your heart’ (whatever that is supposed to mean), and spiritualists often provide a reading list instead of articulating their own supposed knowledge. I think this is a disposition, wanting something to be the case and hoping to see one’s ideas reflected in other people’s words. Supposed revelatory knowledge, normally cloaked in mystery, which by the use of prescribed methodology ordinary folk can obtain if only they were to listen to the gurus, is as old as the human race itself. And yet nobody yet has been able to explain what it is or how it cannot be doubted. Humans like order and rules, even if they are not always understood, and mysticism’s worldly-superior pronouncements are an attraction to many who have the inclination or disposition.

You completely ignored what I said, transforming it into something else, though much of what you say here is true. I said:

"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."

...which is the opposite of what you said.

You say there is nothing new or unique in the idea of the pointing finger, but there is, in contrast to most religions, which employ a doctrine for you to believe in. To point to some truth is not a doctrine. It is to wordlessly point to reality itself. If you are alert and hold no preconceived ideas in mind, you will see it. If you have baggage or cynicism in the way, you will not.

Certainly this image is one you will find in the literature, but I am not repeating it simply because it is considered authoritative; I am repeating it because I understand what it is saying. Here, there are no ideas 'reflected in other people's words', as you insist. There are no words at all. There is no doctrine. There is only the pointing finger. You paint a picture of accepting what mysticism says on the basis of a supposed superiority. But that is not the case. It insists you go see for yourself. All it does is to illuminate the pathway. Of course no one can explain it! An explained mystery renders it dead, as the source of the mystery is beyond explanation, beyond the rational mind. This is never a matter of mere explanation via of factual knowledge and ordinary evidence that can be 'proved'. You continue to interpret the world through the filter of reason, analysis, logic, and concept, and as long as you do, you will never see the world as it actually is. You keep referring to it as 'the world of facts', when no such world exists perse. To see the world as it is means to bring nothing with you, whether it is some doctrine or concept, or a doctrine that is against doctrine, such as atheism.

More later....

 

[godnotgod]

Remove the contingent world from your argument and you have no argument! You can only make the case for a necessary existence (which you call the ‘Absolute&#8217 by acknowledging contingent existence. The paradox is inescapable. Your ‘Absolute’ is relative by virtue of the very definition of its meaning, and it is also necessary in the logical sense for it is only because of the world’s contingency that you are able claim to transcend it! ‘Transcend’ has no meaning if there is nothing to transcend, and ‘enlightenment’ has no purpose without the prior instantiation of the physical world. The world of facts need not exist and yet it does exist! And thus the physical world has more objective reality than your ‘true reality’, the existence of which involves no contradiction if denied. And it is no argument at all to say the ‘Absolute’ is already there because it can only be ‘there’ if the factual world is acknowledged first.

You are still within the sphere of the relative, in which you consider the Absolute to be the opposite of the Relative. But the Absolute you are thinking of is still only a relative absolute. You might say that some object absolutely exists, but no object does so. In fact, no object originally or fundamentally exists. So in this sense, all things are relative. What is Absolute is that from which the visible world emerges, and to which it returns, and that world is Changeless, Undivided, and Infinite, and has no opposite. It is Absolute.

There is only something to transcend in the sense that one thinks it is real. Enlightenment is the experience which shows that it is illusory to begin with. What is transcended is only your concept of what it is.

Consider dreaming (Second Level of Consciousness; 'Sleep with Dreams'). During the dream, you think that the images you see are real; that your experience is real. You must awaken from the dream to realize it's transitory state. Their 'existence' is dependent upon you in your awakened state to return to sleep, but your awakened state is not dependent upon the dream world. There is nothing real in the dream to awaken from because the dream itself is not real to begin with.

When you awaken within the dream in this world, you also realize it's transitory, and therefore, illusory, nature.

In the awakened state (Third Level of Consciousness), you consider the world you live in to be real, but is, in fact, illusory, as seen from the next higher level of conscious awareness, that of Self-Transcendence, which is a true Awakening. What we normally think of as being awake is actually a kind of Waking Sleep, in which we only think ourselves awake, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave firmly believed the shadows cast on the cave walls to represent the true state of reality.

The world we considered to be solid and real is now being shown to be something other than classical logic and science told us it was, thanks to Quantum Physics for one, and now the new cutting edge ideas in astrophysics which are telling us that the universe emerged from nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

But the point I was making here is that you demanded certainty in the case made by the questioner and yet you see fit to exclude it in your own arguments. So I think it reasonable to ask how enlightenment has revealed the true nature of reality? To be clear, I’m asking what is it that enlightenment reveals, independent of the world of facts?

The state of Enlightenment is our true state of being. It is Reality itself. As Prophet put it: "I Am". What does it reveal? That what we think we see is not what is; that who and what we have been socialized and conditioned to be, is not who we really are.

Enlightenment is simply to see things as they are. If you do not see things as they are, you will see them as they are not.

 

[Prophet]

Hi cottage:

While I do not wish to get in the way of your discussion of ultimate reality, I can tell you what is revealed by enlightenment and some of the logical revelations that follow.

You've probably heard it said that enlightenment is a quest to "know thyself". The first revelation of enlightenment is an introspective one: your own true motives. Only when you can see your thought without attachment are your motives revealed. We all hide our evil motives from ourselves in our subconscious. Enlightenment could be understood as the union of the conscious and the subconscious. Early followers of Jesus called this revelation Gnosis.

Seeing one's own motives gives the illumined being true sight into the nature of good and evil. When this one looks into memories of past "acts of righteousness" this being will now see how this act was selfishness in the disguise of selflessness when one acts to be seen or to be rewarded in a hidden state of selfish attachment. This is the first illusion the enlightened see through: Evil disguised as good. Or as Jesus called it, hypocrisy.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

You were the one who brought it up , and used the word 'thought'. if it isn't thought, don't call it thought. I guess I need to spell it out for you at least twice.

[/color]
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.

The ones who do are apparently compelled to begin talking in only riddles in an effort to appear profound.

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

Yes, Im sure you think it is so.

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'.

That's not what I said, Please work on your comprehension. Go reread it, then respond once more, correctly.

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.

[edit] Regardless of how you wish to word what QM says, accurate or not the universe is still there whether you are there to observe it or not, which addresses what you said. You are not needed.

'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.

No, they exi-... Gods, Im not going through that whole thing. It's odd how speaking with 'an enlightened individual' such as yourself seems like nothing more than a fruitless exercise with a slightly dim child.

You disbelieve in everything rational and concrete yet demand there's a higher something you are aware of, which is somehow even truer than truth, somehow reaching this conclusion using evidential methods you have just discounted as worthless. You are masturbating yourself here, believing you possess higher awareness yet you cannot really discuss anything in any understandable way. And, this fact seems to be something you wish to blame on others, ie, we are too dense to understand.

How is it that your enlightenment provides no discernible ability to discuss it? I mean, what sense does that make? If you are somehow more aware of your 'oneness' with all others, and the universe.. how is it that you become more obtuse, and not less? How is it that you appear to be more disconnected from reality, rather than more in tune with it?

Reason would posit that you would become an apt teacher, but you have become the opposite.