The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Considering that you have made unsupported claims and used vague phrasing and undefined words in your arguments, all I can say is...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You forgot the stipulation I have repeatedly made, namely, that I am presenting a knowledge beyond that of the rational mind, and so factual evidence and proof is not a consideration. Learning how to SEE, rather than THINK, is the focus. Oh, I know, in your discriminating mind, thinking is the standard, but not in mystical insight, where thinking is the impediment to seeing.

However, if you need verification of my claims, I have also indicated to you several times that all you need do is go see for yourself, but it appears from your post here that you are still attached to your old baggage of reason, logic, analysis, and thought.

 

[cottage]

That it is changeable and divided is the illusion. You are not reading thoroughly!

No it isn’t. And yes I am. And may I remind you of this:
“There is only Enlightenment itself. In other words, 'Self' is Enlightenment. Because the Self is eternal, Enlightenment is always present. “The clue to why the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world…

I did not say it forgets; I said "awareness of unity is lost in the obsession (fascination) of play"

Ahem! I’m afraid you did!
“The clue to why the Self decides totransform itself into all the myriad forms of the world and to forget that it is the Supreme Intelligence, has to do with play.”

Illusion is a kind of play. You agreed that the world is illusory. Do you think the universe to be then a serious matter, because that is the only other alternative to it having a playful nature, and if you think to to be of a serious nature, then that makes the idea even more laughable, which also makes it a form of play.

What is laughable is the anthropomorphic projection. This discussion is highly entertaining. Keep it coming!

 

[cottage]

You are again twisting things that I am saying. That is not what I said. I said:
"Now, the rest of this issue has to do with how we know that the experience is a valid one, which is connected to the reference we use to determine illusion from reality. That reference is our true nature, which is the Absolute."

You are saying the reference for validating the experience (which you already hold to be true) is ‘our true nature.’ That’s circular and fallacious. See below.

Please don't retort that they are the same statement.

If I may quote your own words, you’ve described our ‘true nature’ as when: “the screen of time, space, and causation is removed from the mind, the universe is then seen as the Absolute. They are the one and the same. “

So ‘true nature’, ‘the experience’ and the ‘Absolute’ are the same thing. Therefore any of those terms are interchangeable and hence the circularity can be demonstrated in a number of ways:

However, this is what you are saying: We know the experience is true because it is validated by our true nature, which is the Absolute. And the Absolute validates the true reality of the experience.

In other words it is a circular argument, a tautological dogma held as an article of faith.

 

[cottage]

Your gobbledegook is clear evidence of your confusion, and you have not answered my question.

My question is quite simple. You spoke of illusion. All I am asking you is: how do you know it to be an illusion?

It seems that I’m expected to answer your question, which I already have, while you continuously refuse to answer mine!
Twice I’ve replied to you (in very simply terms) that since no experience is demonstrable (true because it cannot without contradiction be false) any supposed true experience is therefore an illusion. And remember we are already in full agreement that experience is illusory.
But anyway it is dead easy to challenge that statement. Simply provide a single example of a true experience, and show the “background against which he world is being manifested as the world”?

 

[Tiberius]

You forgot the stipulation I have repeatedly made, namely, that I am presenting a knowledge beyond that of the rational mind, and so factual evidence and proof is not a consideration.

Oh yes. There's nothing rational about your arguments, and you routinely ignore evidence, fact and proof.

Not surprising, really. But it does reduce your argument to "I'm right and you;re wrong, so nyah!"

Learning how to SEE, rather than THINK, is the focus.

I do. I SEE the world around us, and what happens in that world and then I THINK about what could be the explanation for what we see. I come up with a hypothesis, and TEST it. If the hypothesis predicts things that I then see in the real world, I know my hypothesis is likely to be accurate. and if I can't FALSIFY the hypothesis - that is, if I try to prove it wrong but I am unable to - then I am even more convinced that my hypothesis is correct.

Oh, I know, in your discriminating mind, thinking is the standard, but not in mystical insight, where thinking is the impediment to seeing.

And now you are making ad hominims.

However, if you need verification of my claims, I have also indicated to you several times that all you need do is go see for yourself, but it appears from your post here that you are still attached to your old baggage of reason, logic, analysis, and thought.

Yeah, reason, logic, analysis and thought can't accomplish anything, can they. Useless garbage. Not a single good thing has come from them.

Seriously, when you spout nonsense like this, how do you expect me to take you seriously?

 

[godnotgod]

Oh yes. There's nothing rational about your arguments, and you routinely ignore evidence, fact and proof.

Did I not just state that the mystical experience is beyond reason, fact, and proof? Why do you continue to harp on reason as if it is the gold standard, or the ONLY standard?

Not surprising, really. But it does reduce your argument to "I'm right and you;re wrong, so nyah!"

It's neither right nor wrong. You just see the rope as a snake, that's all.

I do. I SEE the world around us, and what happens in that world and then I THINK about what could be the explanation for what we see. I come up with a hypothesis, and TEST it. If the hypothesis predicts things that I then see in the real world, I know my hypothesis is likely to be accurate. and if I can't FALSIFY the hypothesis - that is, if I try to prove it wrong but I am unable to - then I am even more convinced that my hypothesis is correct.

Your seeing is only superficial and selective, which is rendering information that does not accurately reflect the true nature of reality, and then you begin to try to make the world fit your conceptual thought based on appearances, which it cannot. The facts you so derive are merely partially descriptive of the characteristics and behavior of the underlying reality. It ends up mistaking the description for that which it is attempting to describe; they are NOT one and the same.

And now you are making ad hominims.

The statement is not a personal attack, but a distinction between the discriminating mind and the intuitive mind.

Yeah, reason, logic, analysis and thought can't accomplish anything, can they. Useless garbage. Not a single good thing has come from them.

Is that what I said?

Seriously, when you spout nonsense like this, how do you expect me to take you seriously?

Perhaps you should take a break and have yourself a nice cup of tea, and everything may become clear to you.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
That it is changeable and divided is the illusion. You are not reading thoroughly!

No it isn’t. And yes I am. And may I remind you of this:

“There is only Enlightenment itself. In other words, 'Self' is Enlightenment. Because the Self is eternal, Enlightenment is always present. “The clue to why the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world…

It is the world that is obviously (or apparently) changeable and divided. This condition can only be seen as such when it is seen against the background, or field, of that which is changeless and undivided. If the background, or source, of the world is changeless and indivisible, then that which we see as changing and divided must be illusory, and if it is illusory, then the only true reality is the changeless and undivided, which is the Absolute.

"The idea 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 is called 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 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. [and that, folks, is what we call 'illusion'] So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

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

....and if it cannot be changing, then Time is also an illusion!

 

[godnotgod]

If I may quote your own words, you’ve described our ‘true nature’ as when: “the screen of time, space, and causation is removed from the mind, the universe is then seen as the Absolute. They are the one and the same. “

So ‘true nature’, ‘the experience’ and the ‘Absolute’ are the same thing. Therefore any of those terms are interchangeable and hence the circularity can be demonstrated in a number of ways:

However, this is what you are saying: We know the experience is true because it is validated by our true nature, which is the Absolute. And the Absolute validates the true reality of the experience.

In other words it is a circular argument, a tautological dogma held as an article of faith.

What you are not getting in your neat little argument, is that it is our PERCEPTION that is faulty, and that we, as 'observers', are separate from the world. Once it is discovered that our perception is faulty, the question then becomes, which I have repeatedly asked of you: 'how is it that we know that our perception that the world is real to be false?'. How do we know that we are seeing the rope as a snake?

 

[godnotgod]

It seems that I’m expected to answer your question, which I already have, while you continuously refuse to answer mine!
Twice I’ve replied to you (in very simply terms) that since no experience is demonstrable (true because it cannot without contradiction be false) any supposed true experience is therefore an illusion. And remember we are already in full agreement that experience is illusory.

You're still not getting it: if, as you claim, 'experience is illusory', by which reference are you making the claim?

BTW, I never agreed that 'experience is illusory'. You are putting words in my mouth.

But anyway it is dead easy to challenge that statement. Simply provide a single example of a true experience,

'pondfrogleapsplash'

'I Am'

and show the “background against which he world is being manifested as the world”?

Can you have solid without space?

 

[Tiberius]

Did I not just state that the mystical experience is beyond reason, fact, and proof? Why do you continue to harp on reason as if it is the gold standard, or the ONLY standard?

Because it's the only standard that has proven to produced useable results.

It's neither right nor wrong. You just see the rope as a snake, that's all.

What you say is baseless. So yeah, until you can produce evidence to support what you say, I'm gonna say that you;re wrong.

Your seeing is only superficial and selective, which is rendering information that does not accurately reflect the true nature of reality, and then you begin to try to make the world fit your conceptual thought based on appearances, which it cannot. The facts you so derive are merely partially descriptive of the characteristics and behavior of the underlying reality. It ends up mistaking the description for that which it is attempting to describe; they are NOT one and the same.

Ah! The underlying reality! Which you have failed completely to show exists outside your imagination.

Is that what I said?

You've derided the use of those tools constantly.

Perhaps you should take a break and have yourself a nice cup of tea, and everything may become clear to you.

Ah, what arrogance. The conviction that if a person just thinks about it, they'll realise that you were right all along.

 

[godnotgod]

Because it's the only standard that has proven to produced useable results.

Yes, of course: 'useable', as in 'utility'; 'pragmatic'; 'useful', but I have never contested the utilitarian or pragmatic results of science, but utility does not address the question at hand: 'what is the true nature of reality?', not 'what is reality useful for?'

What you say is baseless. So yeah, until you can produce evidence to support what you say, I'm gonna say that you;re wrong.

Science's own Quantum Physics shows us that what we thought to be real and solid (the snake), is not (the rope), but it still cannot provide an answer to the question about the nature of reality.

Ah! The underlying reality! Which you have failed completely to show exists outside your imagination.

Well, let us assume for the moment that there is no such 'underlying reality'. How is it that you perceive the existence of the phenomenal world at all?

You've derided the use of those tools constantly.

You're not making sense. My response was to your statement:

Yeah, reason, logic, analysis and thought can't accomplish anything, can they. Useless garbage. Not a single good thing has come from them.

That does not refer to any 'tools', and I have NEVER claimed that reason, logic, analysis, or thought are useless garbage. They are VERY useful, but utility is not the issue here. All I have been saying to you is that science cannot tell us what the nature of reality is. We use light and gravity every day, but we do not understand what they ARE.

Ah, what arrogance. The conviction that if a person just thinks about it, they'll realise that you were right all along.

I never suggested that you THINK about anything, did I? The suggestion is simply to see, without thought, and the mud will settle to the bottom of the pond whereby the water will become clear of its own accord.

You keep jumping to conclusions about what my intent is without paying attention to what I am actually saying to you.

 

[godnotgod]

Because it's the only standard that has proven to produced useable results.

But mystics have consistently told us that meditation results in happier states of being. These results have been corroborated by others who have applied such meditative techniques, and the results are always the same. Science can monitor brain waves which are indicative of higher states of consciousness. So if 'useful results' are the criteria, then this discussion is over.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Um yeah dude, it's not mystical knowledge; it's increased endorphin levels. Meditating stimulates the brain to convince itself it feels good.

EquiSync - Meditation's effect on brain chemicals like DHEA, GABA, Melatonin, etc.

Your feel good meditation sensations are actually - wait for it - chemical illusions.

 

[godnotgod]

Um yeah dude, it's not mystical knowledge; it's increased endorphin levels. Meditating stimulates the brain to convince itself it feels good.

EquiSync - Meditation's effect on brain chemicals like DHEA, GABA, Melatonin, etc.

Your feel good meditation sensations are actually - wait for it - chemical illusions.

I said happiness, not euphoria, but in spite of that, you've got things backwards, as you see that it is meditation that triggers the increased levels of GABA over those of ordinary people. This is a side effect of meditation itself, as well as increased Alpha and Theta brain wave activity. In addition, long time meditators were found to have increased the thickness of their cerebral cortexes, so consciousness is creating the brain, and not the other way around. Not only is genuine happiness an outcome of meditative activity, but greater insight, clarity, calm, and centering as well, all of which, including posture and breath control, are conducive to the realization of the enlightened state.

The mystical knowledge part comes in when a person, in a conducive state of mind, sees into the true nature of reality. This alone dissolves much confusion, pain, and suffering, resulting in reaching the source of happiness itself. This deeper state of consciousness actually transforms confusion, pain, and suffering. This is not a mere chemical influence, but is due to the power inherent in higher states of consciousness. I have experienced this many times.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Or it's just the chemicals your brain is giving itself from the meditation.

 

[godnotgod]

Or it's just the chemicals your brain is giving itself from the meditation.

Not sure I understand you here, but if you are implying that all that we feel is due to chemical reactions in the brain, then no, I disagree, although these chemicals are part of the overall process. My point in response to your original post is that it is the deliberately conscious activity of meditation that is what triggers these chemical reactions, but these chemicals are not the whole story, as I previously explained. Besides, higher consciousness sees the brain as an instrument IT uses, and not the other way around, along with the fact that there are other centers of conscious awareness within the body, called chakras. Higher Consciousness is not about the brain so much, as about the energy dormant at the base of the spine which is released and travels upwards along the spinal chord to illumine the cranium in enlightenment. This is known as kundalini. We are not talking mere chemically-induced giddy euphoria here, but spiritual radiance of a level unimaginable to, but attainable by, the ordinary man.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, of course: 'useable', as in 'utility'; 'pragmatic'; 'useful', but I have never contested the utilitarian or pragmatic results of science, but utility does not address the question at hand: 'what is the true nature of reality?', not 'what is reality useful for?'

Science gives us usable results - useable in that they can give us information about how things work.

As in Relativity is useful in providing GPS systems.

Science's own Quantum Physics shows us that what we thought to be real and solid (the snake), is not (the rope), but it still cannot provide an answer to the question about the nature of reality.

Did you miss the bit where I asked for evidence? All you are doing is repeating your old unsupported claims, and that's an old joke now.

Well, let us assume for the moment that there is no such 'underlying reality'. How is it that you perceive the existence of the phenomenal world at all?

The way science describes.

You're not making sense. My response was to your statement:

That does not refer to any 'tools', and I have NEVER claimed that reason, logic, analysis, or thought are useless garbage. They are VERY useful, but utility is not the issue here. All I have been saying to you is that science cannot tell us what the nature of reality is. We use light and gravity every day, but we do not understand what they ARE.

Ah, so you want an infinite regress of causes.

What's light? Electromagnetic energy. What's electromagnetic energy? It's a stream of photons. What's a photon? It's the particle that carries the electromagnetic force. What causes the electromagnetic force?

You just keep going like that ad nauseum, doncha?

I never suggested that you THINK about anything, did I? The suggestion is simply to see, without thought, and the mud will settle to the bottom of the pond whereby the water will become clear of its own accord.

Now you are telling us NOT to think? What do you propose we use instead? Gut feeling? magic stones? What?

You keep jumping to conclusions about what my intent is without paying attention to what I am actually saying to you.

Well, you seem to be telling us to forgo logic, rationality and thought and use other means to find out about the universe. I, for one, am unaware of any other method by which we can find verifiable information about the universe.

 

[Tiberius]

But mystics have consistently told us that meditation results in happier states of being. These results have been corroborated by others who have applied such meditative techniques, and the results are always the same. Science can monitor brain waves which are indicative of higher states of consciousness. So if 'useful results' are the criteria, then this discussion is over.

Oh boo hoo. Your happiness is not a measure of how accurate information is. Do you really think that if something makes you happy it is right, and if it makes you unhappy it is wrong? Since when is the universe obligated to keeping you happy?

 

[godnotgod]

Science gives us usable results - useable in that they can give us information about how things work.

As in Relativity is useful in providing GPS systems.

Yes?....and.....?.....C:\......what does utility have to do with understanding the NATURE of REALITY?

Did you miss the bit where I asked for evidence? All you are doing is repeating your old unsupported claims, and that's an old joke now.

So you do not accept the findings of Quantum Physics as valid evidence?....I do.

The way science describes.

Uh huh. And what enables science to do so?

Ah, so you want an infinite regress of causes.

What's light? Electromagnetic energy. What's electromagnetic energy? It's a stream of photons. What's a photon? It's the particle that carries the electromagnetic force. What causes the electromagnetic force?

You just keep going like that ad nauseum, doncha?

Did I ask for their CAUSES? No. I asked what they ARE.

Now you are telling us NOT to think? What do you propose we use instead? Gut feeling? magic stones? What?

When thought about reality is suspended, what remains?...or does everything vanish in a puff of smoke?

Well, you seem to be telling us to forgo logic, rationality and thought and use other means to find out about the universe. I, for one, am unaware of any other method by which we can find verifiable information about the universe.

Is that not unlike the fundie Christian who says that he knows no other truth than Jesus?

Are you not the very universe itself?

When you accidentally and suddenly fall into a cold mountain lake, how do know that the water is cold?

 

[godnotgod]

Oh boo hoo. Your happiness is not a measure of how accurate information is. Do you really think that if something makes you happy it is right, and if it makes you unhappy it is wrong? Since when is the universe obligated to keeping you happy?

Ha...ha....ha....you are certainly one of the more entertaining people I have had occasion to have a discussion with! (next to Angellous, of course, who takes the cake).:biglaugh:

Uh...did anyone suggest wrong or right as components of happiness?

Did anyone suggest that the universe was so obliged?

I will say this, however: the universe itself is Pure Absolute Joy and Celebration, and YOU are 100% contained within it. But if your vision does not allow you to see it for what it is, you cannot participate in it. You will only be able to see it as an object apart from yourself through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation, all of which are perpetrated and perpetuated by Logic, Reason, and Analysis, which will lead you on and on and on to nowhere, to labor under the false idea that the universe is neither conscious, intelligent, nor alive.

So while the universe is in no way obliged to provide you with happiness, it is yours unconditionally and totally. See. Most people do not understand how this can be, that such a fabulous gift can be so freely given. They think there must be a catch; a price that must be paid; suffering that must be endured; worthiness that must be achieved, facts that must be gathered and analyzed; knowledge that must be learned, etc. But if the universe is Absolute Joy as I have suggested, then it follows that it is giving itself to you and I, out of that perfect sense of Joy. In fact, the giving is so perfect and unconditional, that the gift has already been given apriori, before your appearance on this planet. We fail to realize that, and so set about to seek it in religion, science, metaphysics, etc., when we are already in full possession of it!
*****

Douglas Traherne Harding

When I was born I had no head
My eye was single and my body was filled with light
And the light that I was, was the light that I saw by
And the light that I saw by, was the light that I was

And many's the time that I've passed by the river
And saw no tollman and needed no ferryman to cross
And I enjoyed the world aright
For the sea itself floweth
And warm I was and crowned.

But one day walking by the river
I met a tollman with an angry face
And many's the time I passed through his tollgate
And paid no silver and paid no fee
But rather I did hide my sheep and goats under the bags of oatmeal
And cold I was, no crown did I wear

But if you're walking down the street
Why don't you look down to the basement
And sitting very quietly there is a man who has no head
His eye is single and his whole body also is filled with light

And the streets are his and all the people
And even the temples and the whole world
And many's the time he walks to the river
And seeing the ferryman and seeing the tollman
The light within him leaps to greet them
For he sees that their faces are none but his own

One light, light that is one though the lamps be many

You never enjoy the world aright
Till the sea itself floweth
In your veins and you are clothed
With the heavens and crowned with the stars.

Incredible String Band; Wee Tam and the Big Huge