The Debate of God.

[cottage]

Perhaps it is nonsensical and meaningless because you are still attached to thought, which is blocking your view.

This is what the other contributor said:
“Only when you can see your thought without attachment are your motives revealed.”

I replied: “And 'to see a thought without attachment' is nonsensical and therefore meaningless.”

To which your response contradictorily and confusedly implies that thought isn’t meaningless: ‘thought without attachment isn’t nonsensical and meaningless because you’re still attached to thought’!

However I agree with the first intelligible part, that thought isn’t meaningless, for as thought is comprised subject and predicate it is therefore the only criterion of meaning.

Thus it is nonsensical to speak of thought without attachment!

 

[cottage]

You keep adding stuff on top of what I say that simply is not there! Now listen up:

The pointing is wordless, immediate, and spontaneous, as the seeing is. Period. There is no doctrine, no belief, no searching, no defense.

Look!...

pond-frog-leap-splash..

Get it?

You see? Before you have a chance to analyze it, reality has happened. Have you missed it because your mind was pre-occupied with something else?

I do understand the essence of what you are saying, but your replies to me are entirely prescriptive and consist of a series of bald assertions. And your argument has now taken on a theist-type approach. The term ‘true reality’ or the ‘Absolute’ can just as easily be replaced with ‘God’, as in this type of commonly seen statement: God or[………….] is simply there, but you are blinded by your addiction to material substances [or whatever], which means you are unable to see the truth.

Whatever exists is mind dependent. The existence of everything, as a state, condition, or experience can be doubted, but what cannot be doubted is doubt itself, which is thinking. But while form and matter might not exist, and all extended things be merely imagined, a square cannot be a circle. And that is something that is intuitively certain, whereas in the many thousands of words that comprise this discussion not once have we seen the slightest hint of self-evidence in your claims and supposed intuitions. You say you see something independent of mind when, properly speaking, we see with our minds, and minds can be mistaken about all things except those that are necessarily true.

So I think it has been more than adequately shown here that there is no way for you to establish, even to your own satisfaction, that what you believe to be true is more than a speculative belief or an idea. And I’m sorry but it does have a doctrinaire flavour about it, in the way that it is being constantly asserted without evidence or compelling argumentation, and in that sense no different to any other mystical/religious belief. And I’m still not getting an answer to my question concerning supposed knowledge of the world that is not available from facts about the world? Surely, if you understood what was meant by ‘true reality’ you would have enlightened us all by now instead of writing pages and pages arguing against the deceptiveness of the perceptual world, which is already a metaphysical given, using science to argue against the principle of science, and alluding to certain knowledge that you yourself cannot demonstrate or explain? It’s a credibility thing, really.

 

[godnotgod]

And your argument has now taken on a theist-type approach. The term ‘true reality’ or the ‘Absolute’ can just as easily be replaced with ‘God’...

YOU are making that leap, not I. The Absolute has nothing to do with the concept of God.

You say you see something independent of mind when, properly speaking, we see with our minds, and minds can be mistaken about all things except those that are necessarily true.

There is only seeing, without a facility or agent of seeing. There is no 'you' that sees, and no 'mind' that you see with. As I have shown a few posts back, mind and self are self-created principles. They are illusions.

So I think it has been more than adequately shown here that there is no way for you to establish, even to your own satisfaction, that what you believe to be true is more than a speculative belief or an idea. And I’m sorry but it does have a doctrinaire flavour about it, in the way that it is being constantly asserted without evidence or compelling argumentation, and in that sense no different to any other mystical/religious belief. And I’m still not getting an answer to my question concerning supposed knowledge of the world that is not available from facts about the world? Surely, if you understood what was meant by ‘true reality’ you would have enlightened us all by now instead of writing pages and pages arguing against the deceptiveness of the perceptual world, which is already a metaphysical given, using science to argue against the principle of science, and alluding to certain knowledge that you yourself cannot demonstrate or explain? It’s a credibility thing, really.

I already explained about true reality, and how the distorting factors of the discursive mind and the self need to be out of the way before it is seen.

pondfrog-leapsplash

neither mind, nor not-mind
neither thought, nor not-thought
neither thinker, nor no-thinker
neither self, nor not-self
neither belief, nor not-belief
neither doctrine, nor no-doctrine
neither fact, nor no-fact
neither knowledge, nor no-knowledge
neither you, nor not-you
neither I, nor not-I

ONLY pondfrog-leapsplash

There. Your question is now answered.

It is not my job to enlighten you. Roll your own.

 

[godnotgod]

This is what the other contributor said:
“Only when you can see your thought without attachment are your motives revealed.”

I replied: “And 'to see a thought without attachment' is nonsensical and therefore meaningless.”

To which your response contradictorily and confusedly implies that thought isn’t meaningless:

‘thought without attachment isn’t nonsensical and meaningless because you’re still attached to thought’!

Excuse me. I did not say this. You mis-paraphrased me somehow. What I actually said was:

"Perhaps it is nonsensical and meaningless because you are still attached to thought, which is blocking your view."

Please return to the original post to verify that I am correct. I know what I said, and what you mis-quoted is not it.

However I agree with the first intelligible part, that thought isn’t meaningless, for as thought is comprised subject and predicate it is therefore the only criterion of meaning.

Thus it is nonsensical to speak of thought without attachment!

Prophet is referring to seeing, not thinking about thought.

 

[cottage]

Excuse me. I did not say this. You mis-paraphrased me somehow. What I actually said was:

"Perhaps it is nonsensical and meaningless because you are still attached to thought, which is blocking your view."

Please return to the original post to verify that I am correct. I know what I said, and what you mis-quoted is not it.

You agreed with the other contributor, who said: ‘Only when you can see a thought without attachment are your motives revealed.’ I replied that to see a thought without attachment is meaningless.’ And your precise response was: "Perhaps it is nonsensical and meaningless because you are still attached to thought, which is blocking your view." But it is impossible to have thoughts about a thing without saying something about the thing, even if there are no existent things and no external world. ‘Thoughts’ imply mind, and ‘motives’ imply a thinker, but it is only the former that implies a contradiction if denied.

Prophet is referring to seeing, not thinking about thought.

Then why did he say: ‘Only when you can see your thought without attachment are your motives revealed’? And more to the point, why did you agree?

 

[cottage]

YOU are making that leap, not I. The Absolute has nothing to do with the concept of God.

What I’m saying is that there is no distinguishable difference between the two basic concepts, as they both presume to explain reality. ‘God’ can be plucked out of any ontological claim and replaced with ‘The Absolute’, without making any discernable difference.

There is only seeing, without a facility or agent of seeing. There is no 'you' that sees, and no 'mind' that you see with. As I have shown a few posts back, mind and self are self-created principles. They are illusions.

But with respect you’ve ‘shown’ nothing of the sort, and that is why this discussion is continuing. Anything experienced requires something to do the experiencing, just as the notion of self-created principles implies the existence of some entity to create the principles. You’ve even referred to your ‘own direct experience’ (1093) and an ‘awakened mind’ (1091). So you’re being beaten over the head with your own argument! The only ‘illusion’ is that one form of experience has some kind of validity over any other experience, which is incoherent as no experience is true, and since there is no way you can know it to be true it amounts to self-delusion to believe otherwise.

I already explained about true reality, and how the distorting factors of the discursive mind and the self need to be out of the way before it is seen.

You are making the mistake of associating mind with a self or an ego. Mind doesn’t require or imply personal identity or the existence of a self, which is why your previous claim to know ‘our true nature’ is evidently misleading.

pondfrog-leapsplash

neither mind, nor not-mind
neither thought, nor not-thought
neither thinker, nor no-thinker
neither self, nor not-self
neither belief, nor not-belief
neither doctrine, nor no-doctrine
neither fact, nor no-fact
neither knowledge, nor no-knowledge
neither you, nor not-you
neither I, nor not-I

ONLY pondfrog-leapsplash

There. Your question is now answered.

I’m afraid it isn’t! All you’ve done here is to post a shopping list of assertions.
I’ve put the question several times now and am yet to receive an answer that addresses what was asked: ‘What is true of the world that is not available from facts about the world?’

It is not my job to enlighten you. Roll your own.

Well, I’m sorry but that comes across as obfuscation – either that or the only other possibility, which is that you’re just paying lip service to a mystical belief, that is to say an idea.

 

[godnotgod]

You agreed with the other contributor, who said: ‘Only when you can see a thought without attachment are your motives revealed.’ I replied that to see a thought without attachment is meaningless.’ And your precise response was: "Perhaps it is nonsensical and meaningless because you are still attached to thought, which is blocking your view." But it is impossible to have thoughts about a thing without saying something about the thing, even if there are no existent things and no external world. ‘Thoughts’ imply mind, and ‘motives’ imply a thinker, but it is only the former that implies a contradiction if denied.

Prophet is not saying to 'have thoughts about a thing"; he is saying, and I refer you to his original statement, "only when you can SEE, as in 'SEE', get it? He is referring to SEEING what the thought implies, rather than THINKING about it. SEEING is not the same as THINKING. He is saying that when you simply see what you THINK about yourself, what becomes apparent are your ulterior motives.

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Prophet is referring to seeing, not thinking about thought.

Then why did he say: ‘Only when you can see your thought without attachment are your motives revealed’? And more to the point, why did you agree?

The two statements refer to SEEING, so they are in agreement.

 

[godnotgod]

‘What is true of the world that is not available from facts about the world?’

The totally spontaneous experience of

pondfrogleapsplash

...which occurs BEFORE any facts about the experience have been extracted from it.

There. Your question is now answered.

 

[godnotgod]

When one is immersed in Identification ("I"), the Third Level of Conscious Awareness, that of 'Waking Sleep', one cannot SEE the reality of one's predicament. His vision is colored by his Persona, which is to see oneself in an idealistic manner. When one begins to look at one's predicament in a more objective manner, he can transcend his state of Identification and enter the Fourth Level of Conscious Awareness, that of Self-Transcendence, in which he becomes The Observer. In this state, he is not ATTACHED to what he thinks of himself; he only sees it for what it actually is. From this vantage point, he is able to observe himself acting out his self-involved drama on the Third Level without becoming swept along by it.

 

[godnotgod]

Anything experienced requires something to do the experiencing, just as the notion of self-created principles implies the existence of some entity to create the principles.

Please bring the 'experiencer' and the 'principle-creating entity' here now and show them to me.

You’ve even referred to your ‘own direct experience’ (1093) and an ‘awakened mind’ (1091). So you’re being beaten over the head with your own argument!

:biglaugh:

The only ‘illusion’ is that one form of experience has some kind of validity over any other experience, which is incoherent as no experience is true, and since there is no way you can know it to be true it amounts to self-delusion to believe otherwise.

From which reference do you determine that something is an illusion or delusion?

You are making the mistake of associating mind with a self or an ego. Mind doesn’t require or imply personal identity or the existence of a self, which is why your previous claim to know ‘our true nature’ is evidently misleading.

You are quite confused: true nature is to know that there is no personal self which is in possession of same. There is only 'true nature', as in 'I Am'.

The moment one is aware of mind, ego and personal identity have also come into being. The concept of a mind is associated with a self in possession of same. Where there is no thought of 'mind', there is also no personal "I" involved. The self-created aspect of these illusions occurs so quickly that we generally fail to notice their spontaneously coming into being. Only when one's consciousness is expanded can one see how this occurs, as it is occurring.

 

[godnotgod]

The true nature of reality does not derive from facts; facts derive from reality. But to superimpose facts back over reality, and then to call THAT reality, is the ultimate trickery of the mind!

 

[Tiberius]

Of course, you must now show that this has been done...

Because, funnily enough, the science I know gets its facts by STUDYING reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, you must now show that this has been done...

Because, funnily enough, the science I know gets its facts by STUDYING reality.

No it does not. It studies phenomena, and phenomena are merely the outward appearances of reality, like those dancing cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave. We measure, weigh, and predict their behavior, the results of which we call 'facts', which we accumulate and then make statements based on them we call knowledge. But factual knowledge is always based on the dead past, and that is the reason we can predict the behavior of the phenomenal world, and why science will never pierce the mystery of the universe.

The real world of living reality which emerges spontaneously out of this Present Moment cannot be so predicted, as it is not a product of history, and so is not dead. It is knowing rather than knowledge.
*****


"That the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics [ie; 'factual knowledge'] of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.

[In other words, the phenomenal world from which we derive 'factual scientific knowledge']

The Universe is "wound up" against gravity only because the undividedness shows through. And it is "wound up" against electricity only because the infinitude shows through. Gravity, electricity, and inertia are simply the nature of the underlying existence showing through, just as the length and diameter of the rope show through in the snake for which it has been mistaken. What we see as energy is simply the underlying existence showing through. Everything that happens, happens because of that."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

(I hope all of you get this point, because it is a crucial one)

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, you must now show that this has been done...

You only say that because you don't see the obvious, and you don't see it because of your conditioned view. In other words, you only see how and what you have been taught to see.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think we've exhausted this topic, please move on.

 

[godnotgod]

I think we've exhausted this topic, please move on.

Who are you? The Topic Manager? Oh, I forgot, Le Gran Inquisitor, ha ha ha..

(They always exert their 'authority' when we get too close to the Truth)

("Hey, you over there...whaddya think you're doing? I thought I told you to report to the stockades, and enough of this silly touchy-feeley business! Now git!...yer time's up, get it?"):run:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You couldn't know the truth if it slapped your face with a dead fish, mate.

 

[godnotgod]

You couldn't know the truth if it slapped your face with a dead fish, mate.

I know the diff 'tween dead scientific fact and living reality, and that's all I need to know.

You'll find the ones who think they know something huddled around the pile of dead facts, reinforcing each other's 'knowledge' with the stench of their credentialed 'authority'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

lol, riiiiiiight, we are all "asleep".

Have you not yet reached the plateau where you realize it's fruitless to propose your baseless claims to rational people? Lose your desires; especially the one to try convincing us you've got something we need to know for which there is zero evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

lol, riiiiiiight, we are all "asleep".

Shall I slap you in the face with some dead facts?

You're just an ego dragging around a dead corpse!