The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

The intuitive mind can be understood by the rational analyst, though.

How so?

 

[PolyHedral]

How so?

It can be analysed like everything else. Example 1.

 

[godnotgod]

It can be analysed like everything else. Example 1.

That did'nt say much, but please go on.

Before you do, however, you should know that when I talk about a view other than that of the rational mind, I am speaking about a view that the intuitive is only a path to. Enlightenment is not the intuitive path itself, but the state of mind that the intuitive path leads us to.

I can accurately analyze everything there is to know about a strawberry to the nth degree, but until I have tasted one, all my analysis is on the outside, looking in, and dimly at that.

The same is true of the enlightened mind. All analysis, logic, and reason is merely nibbling around the edges.

 

[confused453]

Time, Space, and Causation are merely concepts of the mind. They don't actually exist as realities. You are 'stuck' in them simply because your MIND is stuck in conceptual mode. The place beyond them is right where you are now. Returning to your original state of mind prior to its indoctrination into the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation allows you to see beyond them.

My mind knows only true and false about the concept of reality. I also know that I can imagine things in my mind, just like asking myself "what if". I'm truly open minded and I really wish to check those "concepts of the mind" but it just doesn't make sense to me. Any movement you make, creates time, thus you can measure how many steps or events per cycle of time you have advanced (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Without space/time you would not be able to advance your body or soul towards any distance. Without time, you would not be able to create a thought in your mind. As far as I can tell, we are thinking through time when we are creating thought in our mind. I guess causation is the concept of interacting with things, creating consequences. Again, without space time, you cannot have causation.

It is your ordinary consciousness minus thinking. Just see things as they are. When you think, Time, Space, Causation and the notion of mind will return.

Without my senses the universe is just simply energy in different states. I don't think there's nothing more to this.

That is a very good observation. This is the only reality, right in front of us, now. However, I can be living in reality, but the phenomenal world of 'things' can still be illusory. It is the difference between being awake and living in a daydream. When you are in a daydream, everything seems real, but it is only a dream. When you awaken, you realize the dream-world was not real. Well, that is how it is with the world we live in. We are asleep, but only think we are awake. Real awakening shows us the true nature of this world, and that true nature is that it is illusory. What is real is the background that manifests it as 'real' to our senses. When you awaken to the reality of both background AND foreground together as a single whole, you will be in true reality. In fact, you have never not been in true reality; only you have been dreaming within it. All that is required is to awaken.

Real things cannot be illusory, because we can interact with them and analyse them using our senses and technology. If I'm aware that I'm dreaming, I know that things are not real, and just a part of my mind's imagination. If you refuse to accept the reality as is it, or considered normal, then that is called being delusional.

Yes, I am aware that empty space is not completely empty, but at the same time, that space is not the same material as the pot, and is absolutely necessary in defining it as a 'pot'. No pot can exist without it, just as no thing can exist without empty space to define it.

How do you define 'thing'?

You see, everything in the universe is made out of energy. Matter (stuff like a pot, or a table is just a huge amount of energy in frozen state, where the molecules are packed closely together. Any real physicists, please correct me if you find mistakes.

Now why do I have a totally aware mind or consciousness, and want to survive or continue to be aware, experience, have emotions, and learn? Is it because of a brain? Maybe. But I think there's little more to it that we're yet to discover. But it is not mystical, god or supernatural, which is just an excuse to say "whatever, I just give up looking for answers".

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR]My mind knows only true and false about the concept of reality. I also know that I can imagine things in my mind, just like asking myself "what if". I'm truly open minded and I really wish to check those "concepts of the mind" but it just doesn't make sense to me. Any movement you make, creates time, thus you can measure how many steps or events per cycle of time you have advanced (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Without space/time you would not be able to advance your body or soul towards any distance. Without time, you would not be able to create a thought in your mind. As far as I can tell, we are thinking through time when we are creating thought in our mind. I guess causation is the concept of interacting with things, creating consequences. Again, without space time, you cannot have causation.

What you call 'Time' is not a real thing; it is only the measuring device you use to measure duration and velocity through space. In other words, we, as humans, have come to mistake the clock for Time itself. You are referring to LINEAR Time, which is determined by the grid of the clock, when, in reality, everything is occurring in this timeless moment only. Nothing can occur in the past nor in an imaginary future because they do not exist as realities. That you are traveling through some kind of thought-time is an illusion of the mind. All of your thoughts occur only in the now.

Without my senses the universe is just simply energy in different states. I don't think there's nothing more to this.

That's all the universe really is, but there is the added feature of [unseen] consciousness. We live in an intelligent universe of pure energy-forms.

Real things cannot be illusory, because we can interact with them and analyse them using our senses and technology. If I'm aware that I'm dreaming, I know that things are not real, and just a part of my mind's imagination. If you refuse to accept the reality as is it, or considered normal, then that is called being delusional.

When you dream, things and events seem real. Their illusory quality is understood upon awakening. That goes from the 2nd state of consciousness (sleep with dreams) into the 3rd (waking sleep), which is our everyday wakefulness. But what if this everyday wakefulness is but another level of dreaming, in which our 'reality' is only a higher level of dreaming, and we have yet to awaken into a truly authentic reality in which we will see clearly that this seemingly 'real' level (waking sleep) is only a dream-state. You say 'if I am aware that I am dreaming', but that is not the case with dreaming. In dreams, we believe it is reality. You do not 'know' that things are not real in a dream until you awaken from the dream-state.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. I suppose that if you were dreaming of being followed by a stranger, and think it to be true when you awoke, that could be considered delusional.

Illusion is something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality., like thinking for a moment that a rope is a snake. In the case of our ordinary world, I am saying that it is illusory; that we are deceived into believing it to be real, when it is not. I think it is Quantum Mechanics that is now showing us just that.

You see, everything in the universe is made out of energy. Matter (stuff like a pot, or a table is just a huge amount of energy in frozen state, where the molecules are packed closely together. Any real physicists, please correct me if you find mistakes.

Yes, I am aware of all that, but none of that defines what a 'thing' is.

Now why do I have a totally aware mind or consciousness, and want to survive or continue to be aware, experience, have emotions, and learn? Is it because of a brain? Maybe. But I think there's little more to it that we're yet to discover. But it is not mystical, god or supernatural, which is just an excuse to say "whatever, I just give up looking for answers".

Some of our drives for survival and desires are biological and/or genetic, while others have to do with our social conditioning. Beyond that, there is a part of our consciousness that wants to transcend our suffering and achieve a perfected state, that is to say, to realize our full potential as a human being. Some people call that Enlightenment. It all adds up to a basic desire for happiness.

I think you have the wrong idea of the mystic view. When embarked upon, this path demands everything of you, day and night, and you will fail if you play it half-heartedly. One of the symbols of this path is the salmon, who, fighting upstream against all odds, returns home, spawns, and dies. The path of the mystic is the path of returning to one's true home. But when one arrives, one realizes that one has never left. The separation, the seeking, the seeker, the path, the journey, all but a dream. We call it the state of Identification, where one is lost in the notion of a separate self acting upon the world. All illusion. All part of the cosmic game of hide and seek.

 

[Prophet]

Hello Prophet
The first thing to note here is that you are not actually saying anything at all. I can’t for the life of me see why you appear to be complaining in such an aggrieved fashion?
I gave you a logical argument, which is entirely consistent with every other post that I’ve made in this discussion. Just look at my very first sentence in the quoted piece:
“The instant we presume a self or ego do we confirm that it is necessarily selfish.”
And the second sentence:
So if there is a Self it cannot be 'selflessness', since the self is logically prior to any act, thought or conception.
If you’ve been following the discussion here you would know that I reject the concept of the Self, because it is faulty in all respects. There is no identifiable Self, but if there were then by definition the concept must be logically prior to any act or thought.
In the same way I can reject the existence of God on logical grounds while saying what is necessary for God to be logically possible.

When people want to demonstrate that God doesn't exist for believers, they usually put forth an extraordinarily poor formulation of God, and attempt to force believers to defend it. It is the same with you and the Self. The Self is a concept you don't believe in, yet you want control over the attributes of this concept so that you can disprove it. Critical thinkers like yourself should identify this position as philosophically tenuous at best.

Not only did you forcibly misunderstand the concept of Self I teach, but you've also gone after an established word as well. Selflessness is used in English to describe a state of mind in which one is unconcerned with selfish desires. The meanings which you force upon my concept of Self and the English language's concept of selflessness reduce what I say to utter nonsense, but you must know that you actually CHANGE my argument when you do things like this. There is no discernible attempt on your part to understand what I was saying. There is no discernible attempt on your part to see my argument in a charitable light so that you would have the opportunity to defeat my words at their strongest.

If, in your opinion, debate be won by substituting your own meaning for words and thus, perverting your opponent's argument, attacking a straw man is your fallacy.

 

[Prophet]

When I read, "The instant we presume a self or ego do we confirm that it is necessarily selfish," I don't really know how you've confirmed this, nor do I know how you linked my concept of Self with ego. I can say for you that, yes, the ego is necessarily selfish.

I want to talk about selfishness because I'm not convinced you understand what it is at its most basic level. I can sum it up in one word: attachment. When a selfish being speaks, acts, or thinks, it is done in attachment to selfish desires. These attachments are the cause of all anxiety. If one does work in attachment, in his mind, his wages are owed him, excusing him of all the joy of being thankful for every dollar earned.

It is through selfishness that we create a prison of anxiety for ourselves inside our minds. Peace, joy, and wisdom await those who would venture to escape their cell.

 

[cottage]

When people want to demonstrate that God doesn't exist for believers, they usually put forth an extraordinarily poor formulation of God, and attempt to force believers to defend it. It is the same with you and the Self. The Self is a concept you don't believe in, yet you want control over the attributes of this concept so that you can disprove it. Critical thinkers like yourself should identify this position as philosophically tenuous at best.

Not only did you forcibly misunderstand the concept of Self I teach, but you've also gone after an established word as well. Selflessness is used in English to describe a state of mind in which one is unconcerned with selfish desires. The meanings which you force upon my concept of Self and the English language's concept of selflessness reduce what I say to utter nonsense, but you must know that you actually CHANGE my argument when you do things like this. There is no discernible attempt on your part to understand what I was saying. There is no discernible attempt on your part to see my argument in a charitable light so that you would have the opportunity to defeat my words at their strongest.

If, in your opinion, debate be won by substituting your own meaning for words and thus, perverting your opponent's argument, attacking a straw man is your fallacy.

The entire controversy hinges upon the term ‘Self’. To act selflessly is said to be where one considers not the self but others, first or entirely. But it is impossible, logically and practically, to consider others before considering oneself. I won’t patronise you with a whole list of examples (unless you ask for such) for I’m sure you can see the truth in that.

And it would seem you agree where you speak of attachment. “When a selfish being speaks, acts, or thinks, it is done in attachment to selfish desires. These attachments are the cause of all anxiety. If one does work in attachment, in his mind, his wages are owed him, excusing him of all the joy of being thankful for every dollar earned.”

You then go on to prove the point with another passage: “It is through selfishness that we create a prison of anxiety for ourselves inside our minds. Peace, joy, and wisdom await those who would venture to escape their cell.”

So we shake off our worldly attachments to…gain rewards and satisfaction! Sounds like worldly attachment to selfish desires to me!

We throw off our attachment to worldly things, which cause us anxiety, and thereby achieve a perfect state of [put whatever you like in here].

1) So by transcendent means (or whatever) we’ve escaped the cause of our suffering. But (2) we leave the rest of our fellow human souls behind to suffer in attachment, in order for the self to achieve 1).

The aforementioned self is demonstrable prior in every respect.

 

[godnotgod]

So we shake off our worldly attachments to…gain rewards and satisfaction! Sounds like worldly attachment to selfish desires to me!

We throw off our attachment to worldly things, which cause us anxiety, and thereby achieve a perfect state of [put whatever you like in here].

1) So by transcendent means (or whatever) we’ve escaped the cause of our suffering. But (2) we leave the rest of our fellow human souls behind to suffer in attachment, in order for the self to achieve 1).

Sorry, I don't mean to interject, but there are some gross misperceptions on your part here, cottage. Now, I am speaking to this primarily from the point of Zen teachings, but the teachings of Higher Consciousness are pretty much in agreement about certain basic things.

Firstly, the selfish self that is after the prize of Enlightenment will never achieve it. That desire is an obstacle in itself. In Zen, it is called having a 'gaining idea'. It should be obvious that selfishness and Enlightenment do not go together. One of the primary attributes of an enlightened person is his compassion for the suffering of all beings. There can be no enlightenment without compassion and universal love.

What causes our anxiety is the attachment to worldly things because we think they will offer us security. We seek security because we develop metaphysical anxiety about our existence, due to our ignorance about our true nature. Most of us do not know how we arrived here, why we are here, or where we are going after death. So we seek comfort and security in things, in prestige, in power, in wealth, in religion, even in 'enlightenment'. We grasp at these things thinking they will bring happiness and satisfaction, but they are empty. You may be familiar with the parable of the lilies of the field, in which Yeshua comforted those concerned about their security, where their next meal would come from, etc. Basically, he was telling them not to be concerned with tomorrow, but to focus on the present. This teaching is also known as the wisdom of insecurity.

So, in a way, you are correct. There is this selfish seeking self whose goal is to get something for himself. But from the point of view of higher consciousness, this seeker, this selfish self, is not real. It is this egoic self that dissolves away during the journey. But there is another kind of Self, that which is of an unselfish nature, the authentic Self. It is this Self that is the 'I Am', that awakens. When this awakening occurs, the selfish self is no more. Nirvana means 'extinguishing'. So there is no selfish self that seeks, that grasps, that is attached, that makes it to Nirvana. There is ego-death.

"My heart burns like fire, but my eyes are as cold as dead ashes".

In India, there are two basic kinds of Buddhism: Hinayana and Mahayana. Hinayana is the traditional Buddhism of Ceylon, Burma, Nepal and maybe a couple other countries. It is basically 'one man, one karma'. You achieve enlightenment, and you are entitled to its rewards. You earned it. Mahayana Buddhism, meaning 'Big Boat Buddhism', is considered the greater of the two. It's intent is to save all of mankind: everyone gets into the boat and crosses over. While Mahayanists recognize Hinayanists, they still consider it a lesser teaching.

There are a series of Japanese woodcuts called 'Ten Bulls' which show stepwise the path to Enlightenment. Once it is realized, there is a return to the great sea of humanity. This is the tenth woodcut. In fact, it is said that many who reach the threshold of Nirvana deliberately do not take the last step, and instead choose to be reborn into the world in order to save it out of universal love and compassion for all sentient beings. This being is called a Bodhisattva, a savior, who has surrendered everything for the sake of others.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not sure what the point is to a faith system in which the end result is 'no benefit to anyone'.

You don't benefit from enlightenment. Others don't benefit from enlightenment. The universe itself does not benefit if you attain it and become 'one with it'.

Why bother.

 

[confused453]

Aren't we supposed to debate god?
What exactly are you going to do when you're enlightened? How long will it be before you're going to get bored to death or lose your mind?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Maybe it's meant that once enlightened, you're supposed to debate with God!

It would be awesome to call him on a fallacy.

 

[cottage]

Sorry, I don't mean to interject, but there are some gross misperceptions on your part here, cottage. Now, I am speaking to this primarily from the point of Zen teachings, but the teachings of Higher Consciousness are pretty much in agreement about certain basic things.

Firstly, the selfish self that is after the prize of Enlightenment will never achieve it. That desire is an obstacle in itself. In Zen, it is called having a 'gaining idea'. It should be obvious that selfishness and Enlightenment do not go together. One of the primary attributes of an enlightened person is his compassion for the suffering of all beings. There can be no enlightenment without compassion and universal love.

What causes our anxiety is the attachment to worldly things because we think they will offer us security. We seek security because we develop metaphysical anxiety about our existence, due to our ignorance about our true nature. Most of us do not know how we arrived here, why we are here, or where we are going after death. So we seek comfort and security in things, in prestige, in power, in wealth, in religion, even in 'enlightenment'. We grasp at these things thinking they will bring happiness and satisfaction, but they are empty. You may be familiar with the parable of the lilies of the field, in which Yeshua comforted those concerned about their security, where their next meal would come from, etc. Basically, he was telling them not to be concerned with tomorrow, but to focus on the present. This teaching is also known as the wisdom of insecurity.

So, in a way, you are correct. There is this selfish seeking self whose goal is to get something for himself. But from the point of view of higher consciousness, this seeker, this selfish self, is not real. It is this egoic self that dissolves away during the journey. But there is another kind of Self, that which is of an unselfish nature, the authentic Self. It is this Self that is the 'I Am', that awakens. When this awakening occurs, the selfish self is no more. Nirvana means 'extinguishing'. So there is no selfish self that seeks, that grasps, that is attached, that makes it to Nirvana. There is ego-death.

"My heart burns like fire, but my eyes are as cold as dead ashes".

In India, there are two basic kinds of Buddhism: Hinayana and Mahayana. Hinayana is the traditional Buddhism of Ceylon, Burma, Nepal and maybe a couple other countries. It is basically 'one man, one karma'. You achieve enlightenment, and you are entitled to its rewards. You earned it. Mahayana Buddhism, meaning 'Big Boat Buddhism', is considered the greater of the two. It's intent is to save all of mankind: everyone gets into the boat and crosses over. While Mahayanists recognize Hinayanists, they still consider it a lesser teaching.

There are a series of Japanese woodcuts called 'Ten Bulls' which show stepwise the path to Enlightenment. Once it is realized, there is a return to the great sea of humanity. This is the tenth woodcut. In fact, it is said that many who reach the threshold of Nirvana deliberately do not take the last step, and instead choose to be reborn into the world in order to save it out of universal love and compassion for all sentient beings. This being is called a Bodhisattva, a savior, who has surrendered everything for the sake of others.

A few quick points (I'm supposed to be working). Whether or not the obstacle can be achieved isn't the issue. Desire is what applies in all cases. And 'all of mankind' just happens to include and favour the self. Also, one who surrenders everything for the sake of others is also displaying a selfish consideration. And what, exactly is meant by 'love'? I'll expand on all of this once I've had your response.

 

[confused453]

...All of your thoughts occur only in the now.

If my thoughts occur now, then what happened to the thoughts that I had before now? Then, if I plan to think something the next day, wouldn't that be as if I planed to think of something from the past, into the future? :yes:

That's all the universe really is, but there is the added feature of [unseen] consciousness. We live in an intelligent universe of pure energy-forms.

Why should I care about "[unseen] consciousness" if I cannot interact with it, and you can't prove of its existence?

When you dream, things and events seem real. Their illusory quality is understood upon awakening. That goes from the 2nd state of consciousness (sleep with dreams) into the 3rd (waking sleep), which is our everyday wakefulness. But what if this everyday wakefulness is but another level of dreaming, in which our 'reality' is only a higher level of dreaming, and we have yet to awaken into a truly authentic reality in which we will see clearly that this seemingly 'real' level (waking sleep) is only a dream-state. You say 'if I am aware that I am dreaming', but that is not the case with dreaming. In dreams, we believe it is reality. You do not 'know' that things are not real in a dream until you awaken from the dream-state.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. I suppose that if you were dreaming of being followed by a stranger, and think it to be true when you awoke, that could be considered delusional.

Illusion is something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality., like thinking for a moment that a rope is a snake. In the case of our ordinary world, I am saying that it is illusory; that we are deceived into believing it to be real, when it is not. I think it is Quantum Mechanics that is now showing us just that.

Suppose you get "to awaken into a truly authentic reality" and you don't like it. Are you going to preach to the real reality people that there's a further 'super really real reality'? How many does it take?

Yes, I am aware of all that, but none of that defines what a 'thing' is.

A thing is an object without particular name.

Some of our drives for survival and desires are biological and/or genetic, while others have to do with our social conditioning. Beyond that, there is a part of our consciousness that wants to transcend our suffering and achieve a perfected state, that is to say, to realize our full potential as a human being. Some people call that Enlightenment. It all adds up to a basic desire for happiness.

I think you have the wrong idea of the mystic view. When embarked upon, this path demands everything of you, day and night, and you will fail if you play it half-heartedly. One of the symbols of this path is the salmon, who, fighting upstream against all odds, returns home, spawns, and dies. The path of the mystic is the path of returning to one's true home. But when one arrives, one realizes that one has never left. The separation, the seeking, the seeker, the path, the journey, all but a dream. We call it the state of Identification, where one is lost in the notion of a separate self acting upon the world. All illusion. All part of the cosmic game of hide and seek.

If one returns home and then realizes that the one never really left, then the one is lying to itself. And I don't see how this can be good for anyone.
I don't think it's a good idea to escape to some other world, and leave your problems of this world behind for the rest of the humans to solve. Seems kind of irresponsible.

 

[Tiberius]

What 'new level of reality' are you talking about? There is nothing new or old about it. It has always existed outside of Time, Space, and Causation. Sages have told us about it since Day One. There is only one reality, and this is it.

So you do know what I am talking about.

No, logic and reason cannot tell you about the nature of reality; all they can do is to tell you about its characteristics and behavior and predict its behavior.

Science can explain emergent properties.

The very fact that it appears as phenomena means it has a nature. Of necessity, it's nature must be, for example, real or illusory, manifested or created, etc., even though we do not know how to ascertain it's nature via science, logic, or reason. In fact, science does not even address the question because it assumes it to be real from the beginning. It assumes creation from the beginning.

Define "creation" in this context.

We know that we can prove that an image of water is a mirage or not. But if the phenomenal world that we call 'real' is on a higher level of illusion, ordinary logic and reason cannot determine that, since logic and reason operate on this level, and not on a higher plane. Science just assumes that, no matter how unbelievable something may seem, it MUST have a rational explanation. That may not necessarily be true, and, in fact, has not been shown to be true so far in the history of science; we are just led on to even more mysteries. All that science has come up with to date are the mechanics of the phenomenal world. Mechanics and nature are two very different things. The problem is that science is not asking questions that would lead it to what the nature of reality is. That is not within its methodologies, which are reason and logic.

You have no evidence of a higher plain.

It is not underneath science. Science is underneath it, because science is still within the sphere of sensory awareness, which is connected to illusion. As long as you are immersed within the illusion itself, you cannot know it to be an illusion, because the level of the illusion is such that it is beyond detection via ordinary, conditioned consciousness. You have to view the phenomenal world from a higher vantage point, that which is responsible for the illusion to begin with.

Unsupported claim.

Because it is the source of the phenomenal world that logic and reason attempt to explain.

Unsupported claim.

It is true because your intuitive mind is already in place prior to your using your logical, rational mind. It's just that you have, through years of social indoctrination and condtioning, ignored and forgotten the presence of your intuitive mind, relegating it to the back burner, so to speak, and giving prominence to your thinking mind, which tells you it is the only game in town. All you have to do is to take the time to re-discover your original mind to see that it is still there, fully intact, and ready to teach you what your thinking mind cannot possibly do. But first, the monkey-chatter of the thinking mind must be quieted down, so that Big Mind can come into play. You see, the nature of Big Mind is that it is non-aggressive, and does not impose itself like monkey mind does. So you will never know about it, or rather, remember it, until you get a handle on monkey mind.

Ad hominom, and circular logic. "If you believe me, then you'll realise I'm right and thus you'll believe me.

You have misunderstood my answer. It was a metaphor. What I was referring to in comparing human nature to universal nature is that they are one and the same, in the same manner that a drop of sea water is the same chemical composition as that of the sea from which it came, NOT that humans are necessarily the same PHYSICAL composition as the universe, though there are references to that as being true nonetheless.

Not a very good metaphor, it would seem. I'd suggest you not use it to illustrate the point you are trying to make.

In any case, there are many parts that make up the universe that are not found in Humans, such as photons.

At any rate, YOU are an outgrowth of the universe in the same manner as an orange is an outgrowth of an orange tree. The Big Bang is still an ongoing event, and YOU are part of it, deny it though you may, which would be like an ocean wave suddenly declaring its independence from the ocean.

Once again, I ask you when did I ever say that I am not a part of the universe?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Re-read, please: I said: "They can lead us to knowledge, but not to knowing."

ASnd you also said that they cannot lead us to real understanding.

YOU are the evidence of its presence! YOU are the universe looking at itself through YOUR eyes, PRETENDING that you are some 'other' you have named 'Tiberius', and playing the supreme cosmic game of Hide and Seek. My, my, aren't we clever today? Kudos to you and your poker-faced performance, but I'm on to you, dahling, ha ha ha....

Unsupported claim. You have not explained how my existence proves the mystical.

I can just as easily say that fairies exist and made everything from sunshine and smiles, and the fact that you are here reading this is proof, because how else could you get here if the fairies didn't make you?

 

[godnotgod]

Not sure what the point is to a faith system in which the end result is 'no benefit to anyone'.

You don't benefit from enlightenment. Others don't benefit from enlightenment. The universe itself does not benefit if you attain it and become 'one with it'.

Why bother.

I don't know why you refer to it as a 'faith system'. Enlightenment is not a doctrine one believes or has faith in. It is a real state of being, the awakened state.

Enlightenment is the end of metaphysical suffering and confusion. It is the state of Absolute Joy. The light of its understanding reaches all of mankind.

Benefits:

. You realize your true nature
. You see reality as it is.
. Metaphysical suffering comes to an end
. You are connected to the true Source of real Happiness
. Inner peace and stability
. Love and compassion for others who suffer become your concern
. You are, less and less, a contributor to the suffering of the world
. There can be psychological/physical health benefits

When I used to visit the Zen Center in San Francisco, I could sense the pure and positive energy emanating from inside as I approached the grounds. It was unmistakable. It is real. One gets a sense of being in the eye of the storm, a place of light in a world driven by delusion.

 

[godnotgod]

A few quick points (I'm supposed to be working). Whether or not the obstacle can be achieved isn't the issue. Desire is what applies in all cases.

The issue of desire is a kind of paradox, because the desire for enlightenment is the greatest barrier in attaining it. On the one hand, the Masters go on telling us "Attain Enlightenment!", while on the other hand they go on saying "Don't desire it!". And it has been a great puzzle for the poor disciple. The Master is saying both things: desire it, and don't desire it. Desire it because it is the only thing worth desiring. Don't desire it because desire becomes a barrier.

And 'all of mankind' just happens to include and favour the self.

You forget that this self is illusory, and man's true nature, the authentic Self, lies just underneath the surface. When a bodhisattva 'saves all of mankind', he is recognizing that all sentient beings are, in fact, Buddha-nature. When a Hindu bows to another and says "Namaste", it is a recognition and honoring of the divine nature within to whom he bows.

Also, one who surrenders everything for the sake of others is also displaying a selfish consideration. And what, exactly is meant by 'love'? I'll expand on all of this once I've had your response.

It would be selfish if, in surrendering, there is an ulterior motive of a gaining idea, an expectation of some reward or outcome for himself. To do so out of a genuine concern for the welfare and happiness of others with no expectation of reward is an unconditional act. There is nothing to gain on the part of the giver because he already has what he needs.

 

[confused453]

I don't know why you refer to it as a 'faith system'. Enlightenment is not a doctrine one believes or has faith in. It is a real state of being, the awakened state.

Enlightenment is the end of metaphysical suffering and confusion. It is the state of Absolute Joy. The light of its understanding reaches all of mankind.

Benefits:

. You realize your true nature
. You see reality as it is.
. Metaphysical suffering comes to an end
. You are connected to the true Source of real Happiness
. Inner peace and stability
. Love and compassion for others who suffer become your concern
. You are, less and less, a contributor to the suffering of the world
. There can be psychological/physical health benefits

When I used to visit the Zen Center in San Francisco, I could sense the pure and positive energy emanating from inside as I approached the grounds. It was unmistakable. It is real. One gets a sense of being in the eye of the storm, a place of light in a world driven by delusion.

Serious religious followers feel about his/her religion mostly the same as what you wrote. Steve Jobs was the follower of Zen, but reading his biography (finished half the book so far), things look the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

[godnotgod]

If my thoughts occur now, then what happened to the thoughts that I had before now? Then, if I plan to think something the next day, wouldn't that be as if I planed to think of something from the past, into the future? :yes:

No. When you formulate your plans to 'think something the next day', you are doing it in the present moment. When the 'next day' comes, and you think your 'planned thought', it will also be the present moment. There is no past, there is no future. There is only this one, still, timeless Present Moment out of which everything emerges. In other words, the past does not create the present, as we have been taught to believe; the present creates the past.

The thoughts you had in previous present moments become part of your memory. There is no past in which they reside; they only reside in memory. When you access this memory of stored thoughts, you are always doing it in the present moment. There is nothing you can do in the past, because the past (the traces of the present) no longer exists.

Why should I care about "[unseen] consciousness" if I cannot interact with it, and you can't prove of its existence?

Your consciousness is always unseen. I think you are thinking 'undetected'. A fish in the sea is unaware of the sea, and yet cannot live without the sea. It is the same with your consciousness. It is just there, and you are dependent upon it, but it does not interfere with you. You don't notice it because you are focused on the things in the foreground of your consciousness, which command your attention.

Suppose you get "to awaken into a truly authentic reality" and you don't like it. Are you going to preach to the real reality people that there's a further 'super really real reality'? How many does it take?

Higher Consciousness is beyond both like and dislike, but there are different levels to it. Once you see things the way they actually are, you have no preference one way or the other. You just see it for what it is and accept it, because that is the way it is.

A thing is an object without particular name.

So what is an 'object'?

If one returns home and then realizes that the one never really left, then the one is lying to itself. And I don't see how this can be good for anyone.
I don't think it's a good idea to escape to some other world, and leave your problems of this world behind for the rest of the humans to solve. Seems kind of irresponsible.

That is not what happens. You become fully responsible for your actions when returning home, but you no longer create waves in the world in dealing with their effects.

There is no 'other world' to which one 'escapes'. There is only this world, right here, right now. It's just that you now see it differently than you did when you were deluded. You see it for what it is. There is no escape, but in not trying to escape, there is freedom, because there is nothing to escape from.

You never left home. It's just that you thought you did. You thought you became separated from God, or the Source, or whatever, but that is only your delusion. So if anything, you are lying to yourself in thinking yourself separated. You cannot ever be separated from the Source that is your true home. That would be like a wave thinking itself separate from the sea from which it emerges, and to which it returns. Not possible. When you awaken from your dream of separation and suffering, you realize you never left home. You have always been here, now.

Imagine that you fall asleep and dream that you die in the dream. When you awaken, you realize that it was only a dream and that you are very much still alive. That you were separated from life is only an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Serious religious followers feel about his/her religion mostly the same as what you wrote. Steve Jobs was the follower of Zen, but reading his biography (finished half the book so far), things look the opposite of what you are claiming.

Can you be more specific? Jobs may have been a 'follower', but may not have realized the fruits of Zen, and may have come to the wrong conclusions. Many try, and many fail, probably because in most cases they are still carrying around their old baggage that is an obstacle to any progress.