The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Since everything you've presented to us has been completely without evidence, it's a faith system as you've presented it, Im afraid. I believe it qualifies, especially since all we have as potential practitioners, is an allusion to potential, undetectable results [scientifically speaking, because literally anything science can detect is apparently an illusion, in this faith view], that should come about if we follow the prescribed meditations. If they are achieved, spiritual joy will result; but nothing literally tangible nor physical in nature other than some kind of happiness which benefits mankind and the universe, somehow.
Just go with it and don't get so hung up on illusory labels.

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.

But you said there's no reward. Joy would be a personal reward endemic to a Self; some marginally, some exclusively.

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

So actually it contains a whole plethora of benefits that are only of the Self.

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.

Probably merely a delusion.
Heehee! I kid, I kid.

Well, look. I suppose something about this confused, assertion-laced system appeals to you and perhaps provides you with some benefit, but in all these pages I have found literally nothing in your statements which have granted me insight or benefit. I am sympathetic, and I apologize. You are certainly trying very hard. But essentially to this Self, you present a useless system whose basic ideas are anathema to me. It is an example, much like a large portion of the Abrahamic system, that stands on a pedestal which denies all of human nature as inherently bad. And the only way it sees to reach a positive outcome is to destroy that which makes us what we are. Call it whatever positive words you like, but I see this as an Orwellian exercise in disguising something which should be frightening.

Without self-respect and self-awareness there can be no love or caring for another. So saving all humanity by removing what makes it human, is simply not feasible. Nor do I personally find it acceptable.

 

[Prophet]

My guru was my deceased brother, a yogi, who wordlessly banged pots together in sych with my thoughts to awaken me.

Ah, so you are awakened. Are awakened and enlightened different adjectives representing different things in your understanding? I ask this because you continually deny that you are enlightened, yet you say this thing which means the same in my understanding as a claim of enlightenment.

If you continue to insist they are different things, I hope a reasonable explanation is forthcoming.

 

[confused453]

There is no "I" to the squirrel that is fighting. There is only fighting, without an agent of fighting.

Maybe it's just a Big Act on the part of the squirrels.

Other groups of squirrels I observed did not fight. Try taking the food away from a hungry dog, and it will bite. Dogs protect their owners and will fight for them in many cases. Humans might act in a similar way.

And what is 'causing' the wind to move?

pressure variation of air?

Both mind and movement are illusions. YOUR mind is moving!

If you fail to provide real evidence to your claims, then your claims are an illusion that you create in your mind to make yourself feel better.
The issue with your type of thinking is that you can ignore the law, or justify actions like murder, drug abuse, or destroying the environment etc, by claiming that everything is just an illusion or "god told me so" in case of religious person. And that doesn't fix the problems of the world in any way.

 

[cottage]

I think you have a misunderstanding of where the urge to be selfless (morality) comes from and I'm clued into this by how you characterize fully selfless behavior as an impossible ideal. The urge to be selfless comes from the Truth that all sentient lifeforms are part of the same person. It is in this spirit of oneness with the whole that selfish desires should be put aside, and not the spirit you seem to advertise as selfless, which seems to me to be a sense of self worthlessness that would cause one to give away even that which one needs. Since we are all part of the One we are all equally important. I am not telling everyone to give everything away. I am saying to act and speak without expectation of recompense in any way, because this displays the very nature of good. Good can only be for its own sake, without attachment, given freely as an offering to the Force which continually inspires us to be as One.

Is worthlessness a fair assessment for the attitudes brought upon people by performing charitable works without thought of receiving anything in return (without attachment)? Do people who volunteer their time at a local humane society likely suffer feelings of intense worthlessness for their time wasted upon caring for dogs and cats that could have been spent gaining for themselves? The alternative view I present says these people experience Oneness.

(Also in reply to your post 1703)

Every action has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the most morally perfect example of humankind. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, and miss their bus, all are selfish. Many a parent would willingly give up their own lives for that of their children. But would they do so for another parent’s child?

Consider the following:

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also likely that he will be lauded and rewarded for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will be because he considers he has a more than reasonable chance of saving the women – and preserving himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. But he can shout, call out for help and possibly throw in some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears by employing a defence mechanism to justify the form of action he has determined upon. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree. But if he does nothing he must live with the dreadful consequences of his shortcomings, together with the possible condemnation, or suspicion that he is a callous and uncaring individual. (And even if he were in fact the latter, his self-regarding nature would object to the label as an attack on his righteous person).

The Self is prior, as demonstrated by the instantiation of the personal pronoun ‘I’ or some other individualised entity. We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for their God, or an ideology, are first giving consideration to the self: for God or the cause must logically come second.

It’s a rather sobering and depressing thought, but true nevertheless. But this fundamental truth doesn’t prevent or curtail generosity or empathy, and the underlying selfishness has positive aspects to it that affect the world at large, for what harms one human may harm all humans. We help ourselves in order to help others that we might help ourselves. It’s what I call the necessary survival circuit. All humankind benefits, our necessarily selfish motives notwithstanding.

 

[Prophet]

(Also in reply to your post 1703)

Every action has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the most morally perfect example of humankind. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, and miss their bus, all are selfish. Many a parent would willingly give up their own lives for that of their children. But would they do so for another parent’s child?

Consider the following:

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also likely that he will be lauded and rewarded for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will be because he considers he has a more than reasonable chance of saving the women – and preserving himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. But he can shout, call out for help and possibly throw in some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears by employing a defence mechanism to justify the form of action he has determined upon. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree. But if he does nothing he must live with the dreadful consequences of his shortcomings, together with the possible condemnation, or suspicion that he is a callous and uncaring individual. (And even if he were in fact the latter, his self-regarding nature would object to the label as an attack on his righteous person).

The Self is prior, as demonstrated by the instantiation of the personal pronoun ‘I’ or some other individualised entity. We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for their God, or an ideology, are first giving consideration to the self: for God or the cause must logically come second.

It’s a rather sobering and depressing thought, but true nevertheless. But this fundamental truth doesn’t prevent or curtail generosity or empathy, and the underlying selfishness has positive aspects to it that affect the world at large, for what harms one human may harm all humans. We help ourselves in order to help others that we might help ourselves. It’s what I call the necessary survival circuit. All humankind benefits, our necessarily selfish motives notwithstanding.

So, it seems when you say "the self is logically prior" you are saying that it is the nature of all beings to be selfish and this is a nature that is unavoidable and intrinsic to being alive, causing all actions to be attached. Do you believe this is a proof or an opinion? Do you honestly believe no people have given up their lives for the children of others?

Either way, you proceed as if it were a proof, and form your example around this idea, forming attachments in both directions. (If you consider your example to be your proof, elements of your example would render your reasoning circular.) Do you think that I do not know that attachment can form around reputation as well as personal safety? There is a strong word that Jesus used for those who act as if they are selfless but inside are selfish, and that word is "hypocrite". They wash the outside of the cup, ignoring the inside. They announce their selflessness with loud trumpets to onlookers from without, while every motive they possess is selfish.

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

-Jesus

 

[godnotgod]

Since everything you've presented to us has been completely without evidence, it's a faith system as you've presented it, Im afraid.

Let's return for a moment to Plato's Cave. One of the prisoners escapes and goes topside to see the Sun for the first time. He returns to tell the others of his discovery. At this point they can either go see for themselves or refuse to believe anything he is saying, in which case they will never see the Sun if they remain inside the cave. Going to see for themselves requires no faith whatsoever. They're not going to see because they believe there is a Sun, but to see what the other prisoner is talking about. There's no system involved, other than to see for oneself. It's the same approach science uses to verify information, except that science uses additional methodology. Both intents are simply to verify the data. What might keep the prisoners from wanting to verify the claim is that they are thoroughly indoctrinated into believing, as truth, that the shadows cast upon the cave walls are the only true reality. Naturally, any other claim of what constitutes reality would be viewed as highly suspect. Furthermore, the prisoners do not understand that they are not free. They think their condition is the normal one. I read a story several years ago of a grandmother who kept her granddaughter in a cage in the basement. The little girl was brought up thinking this was the norm, and voluntarily went back into the cage when playtime was over. Most of mankind is preoccupied with the pursuit of Security, Power, or Sensation, or some combination of these three. These temporary egoic gratifications fail to bring happiness, but men have continued to pursue these addictions out of their ignorance for centuries with the same disastrous results due to our social programming that tells us these are the desired goals of life. Higher Consciousness is able to transform these toxic addictions into preferences, so that instead of being other-directed and karmically-driven, one is now self-directed from an intelligent conscious force from within, without the negative effects. One is now doing what is really beneficial for both oneself and for others. One is now living life in primetime, as it was meant to be lived. Here, now, free of delusion, delusion which causes suffering. One has arrived, fully conscious, in the Here and Now, because that is where one always is, not in some past or imaginary future. And so, the prisoners of Plato's Cave represent man on the third level of consciousness, Waking Sleep, in which he only thinks himself awake and real, while the experience of the Sun is man truly awake and real. In fact, just like the cave prisoners, when most of us who are asleep are told they are not awake and not real, they protest, and, for a brief moment, via a trick of nature, do, in fact, wake up for only a brief moment to say: "Of course I am awake!", and then immediately go back to sleep. On top of that, and just like the cave prisoners, other sleepers reinforce the sleep state of the rest of the sleepers.

It's uncannily similar to what seems to be going on here on these forums. The more I try to awaken some of you, the more combative you become. That's OK. It's just how fear of the unknown works. You know what I mean, *wink*, *wink*.

Sleepers! Awake! LOL

More later....

 

[godnotgod]

(Also in reply to your post 1703)

Every action has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the most morally perfect example of humankind. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, and miss their bus, all are selfish. Many a parent would willingly give up their own lives for that of their children. But would they do so for another parent’s child?

Consider the following:

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also likely that he will be lauded and rewarded for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will be because he considers he has a more than reasonable chance of saving the women – and preserving himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. But he can shout, call out for help and possibly throw in some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears by employing a defence mechanism to justify the form of action he has determined upon. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree. But if he does nothing he must live with the dreadful consequences of his shortcomings, together with the possible condemnation, or suspicion that he is a callous and uncaring individual. (And even if he were in fact the latter, his self-regarding nature would object to the label as an attack on his righteous person).

The Self is prior, as demonstrated by the instantiation of the personal pronoun ‘I’ or some other individualised entity. We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for their God, or an ideology, are first giving consideration to the self: for God or the cause must logically come second.

It’s a rather sobering and depressing thought, but true nevertheless. But this fundamental truth doesn’t prevent or curtail generosity or empathy, and the underlying selfishness has positive aspects to it that affect the world at large, for what harms one human may harm all humans. We help ourselves in order to help others that we might help ourselves. It’s what I call the necessary survival circuit. All humankind benefits, our necessarily selfish motives notwithstanding.

Haven't you ever given something to someone or done something of benefit for someone with absolutely no expectation of reward, other than the indirect reward of you're becoming happy by making them happy? Haven't you ever forgotten for a moment your own safety or comfort to lend aid to someone in distress or misery?

There's an interesting little exercise practiced in the Zen temples called 'washing the dishes in order to wash the dishes'. We don't wash the dishes to please anyone, but in order to get the dishes clean. We don't sweep the floor FOR someone, but in order to get the floor clean. In this way, focus and presence is always in the Here and Now. Imagine a housewife slaving all day to clean the house with the intent of pleasing her husband. When he comes home, he has had a bad day, and is angry, and takes it out on his wife. His wife now thinks her husband is an ingrate as she was expecting praise from him for the clean house. The husband thinks his wife does'nt care about his problems, and is only concerned with superficial things. And on and on. Whereas, if the wife had cleaned the house in order to get it clean, those tasks are now completed. There is no expectation. Now she can devote all her attention to her husband's problem. Now her husband feels better since he was able to share his troubles, and then looks around and applauds his wife on how clean the house is! Love comes about as a natural consequence without anyone doing something to deliberately bring it about.

 

[godnotgod]

But you said there's no reward. Joy would be a personal reward endemic to a Self; some marginally, some exclusively.

So actually it contains a whole plethora of benefits that are only of the Self

Well, if choosing to jump into a pool filled with water instead of the empty one right next to it is considered 'reward', then you have a point.

There is no self that benefits; there is only benefiting.

The awakened see no abiding self in themselves nor in others. They do not see a suffer-er; All they see is suffer-ing, and the means of alleviating the suffering. In the alleviation of suffering, there is no expectation of reward; no 'gaining idea' for any 'self', but in its alleviation, there is joy for both the giver and the recipient.

 

[godnotgod]

pressure variation of air?

...and the cause of that?...and the first cause?...and before that?...you see the problem?

If you fail to provide real evidence to your claims, then your claims are an illusion that you create in your mind to make yourself feel better.
The issue with your type of thinking is that you can ignore the law, or justify actions like murder, drug abuse, or destroying the environment etc, by claiming that everything is just an illusion or "god told me so" in case of religious person. And that doesn't fix the problems of the world in any way.

The world is a mess because so many thought they could 'fix the problem', instead of working on themselves.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, if choosing to jump into a pool filled with water instead of the empty one right next to it is considered 'reward', then you have a point.

There is no self that benefits; there is only benefiting.

That's nonsensical.

The action of benefiting must be made by a Self. It's not really acceptable to change the definitions of words at whim, simply in order to construct a belief system which has in its dogma lot of positive-sounding words, whose concepts are actually abandoned.

The awakened see no abiding self in themselves nor in others. They do not see a suffer-er; All they see is suffer-ing, and the means of alleviating the suffering. In the alleviation of suffering, there is no expectation of reward; no 'gaining idea' for any 'self', but in its alleviation, there is joy for both the giver and the recipient.

So there is a reward.

Look, it's Orwell from you, all the way down.

 

[confused453]

...and the cause of that?...and the first cause?...and before that?...you see the problem?

The world is a mess because so many thought they could 'fix the problem', instead of working on themselves.

So if you don't know the answer of what came before, then you automatically decide that everything is an illusion? That's just lazy. I would worry very much if somebody's parents start to think that their kids are an illusion. If the kids get indoctrinated on that subject, then they will not care about the reality or our beautiful planet, and be a part of what's causing the world's problems. Science and education is the only way to fix our problems, and I think it will eventually.:yes: You see, I don't believe in science, I trust it, because it provides reality based evidence, and if many start to question it, then it gets revised based on new observations and analysis, until the absolute truth is found.

I suggest you to read a little at Universe Today and listen to some Astronomy Cast podcasts. You'll be amazed of what's out there.

 

[cottage]

So, it seems when you say "the self is logically prior" you are saying that it is the nature of all beings to be selfish and this is a nature that is unavoidable and intrinsic to being alive, causing all actions to be attached. Do you believe this is a proof or an opinion?

The purely logical proof is demonstrated by the instantiation of the concept of self or some other individualised entity in relation to the act. The evidential proof is simply to ask for a single instance of any act that doesn’t have a selfish attachment.

Do you honestly believe no people have given up their lives for the children of others?

Forgive me but that’s a rather presumptuous thing to say in answer to the question I posed! We both know full well that countless people have died in saving, or attempting to save, a child’s life. What I said was that many a parent would willingly give up their own lives for that of their children. Or in other words, the love and maternal instinct is so strong in many cases that a parent would willingly forsake their own life to preserve that of their offspring, but how many people would volunteer to give up their lives for a stranger’s child?

Either way, you proceed as if it were a proof, and form your example around this idea, forming attachments in both directions. (If you consider your example to be your proof, elements of your example would render your reasoning circular.) Do you think that I do not know that attachment can form around reputation as well as personal safety? There is a strong word that Jesus used for those who act as if they are selfless but inside are selfish, and that word is "hypocrite". They wash the outside of the cup, ignoring the inside. They announce their selflessness with loud trumpets to onlookers from without, while every motive they possess is selfish.

We are all hypocrites! And those who deny it are immediately proved, by such high self-regard, to be what they claim they are not!

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

-Jesus

Those are just religious platitudes. We don’t have to shout from the rooftops to announce our beneficence to the world. That warm glow of satisfaction, that pleasing sense of self-praise, those feelings still exists without the act becoming public knowledge and, as I’ve already explained, may serve as a self-justifying defence mechanism.

 

[cottage]

Haven't you ever given something to someone or done something of benefit for someone with absolutely no expectation of reward, other than the indirect reward of you're becoming happy by making them happy? Haven't you ever forgotten for a moment your own safety or comfort to lend aid to someone in distress or misery?

‘You’re becoming happy.’ There it is, in a nutshell! Look again at the argument I gave concerning the drowning woman and the man’s mental tribulations.You cannot consider others before considering yourself, made evident both by our instinct and the necessary logical imperative.

There's an interesting little exercise practiced in the Zen temples called 'washing the dishes in order to wash the dishes'. We don't wash the dishes to please anyone, but in order to get the dishes clean. We don't sweep the floor FOR someone, but in order to get the floor clean. In this way, focus and presence is always in the Here and Now. Imagine a housewife slaving all day to clean the house with the intent of pleasing her husband. When he comes home, he has had a bad day, and is angry, and takes it out on his wife. His wife now thinks her husband is an ingrate as she was expecting praise from him for the clean house. The husband thinks his wife does'nt care about his problems, and is only concerned with superficial things. And on and on. Whereas, if the wife had cleaned the house in order to get it clean, those tasks are now completed. There is no expectation. Now she can devote all her attention to her husband's problem. Now her husband feels better since he was able to share his troubles, and then looks around and applauds his wife on how clean the house is! Love comes about as a natural consequence without anyone doing something to deliberately bring it about.

The most glaringly obvious thing to note here is that the woman is cleaning the house first and foremost to please herself. Don’t for a minute assume that an abiding self-interest exists only in terms of adulation or the attainment of a spouse’s pleasure. It is also about satisfying the demands we impose upon ourselves, and in answering our innate needs. And in that same vein, love is a biological/psychological phenomenon that adequately serves the individual. For example, how do individuals feel to learn that someone loves their spouse or partner as much (or more) than them? The divorce courts and instances of acrimonious separation sadly answers that question for us. Love is relative to the individual’s needs and not to some sublimely romantic notions of selflessness.

 

[cottage]

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.

It isn’t a paradox; it is a direct contradiction.

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.

To say that mankind, as sentient beings, are illusory is to say they imagine they do not exist. But if sentient beings imagine they do not exist, then self-evidently something corresponding to sentient beings must exist!

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.

Logically there must always be an ulterior motive - or in plain terms, a motive. And by definition the giver doesn’t have what he wants if he wants something, ie the happiness of others. And ‘happiness’ implies a state devoid of unhappiness. That’s an example of dualism at work!

 

[cottage]

[/color]

So if you don't know the answer of what came before, then you automatically decide that everything is an illusion? That's just lazy. I would worry very much if somebody's parents start to think that their kids are an illusion. If the kids get indoctrinated on that subject, then they will not care about the reality or our beautiful planet, and be a part of what's causing the world's problems. Science and education is the only way to fix our problems

Well said! :clap What you describe is the reality, not a speculative metaphysical existence that some of us sitting behind our computers proclaim to be the case. All the pontificating in the world doesn't put bread on the table and shoes on our feet, never mind addressing the more newsworthy problems that trouble this planet of ours. It is the doers that deserve our respect, not the thinkers who are merely indulging their obsessions and inclinations. Science has never pretended to have the answers to everything (or anything in terms of certainty) but it is an honourable quest and those who practice it deserve our gratitude.

 

[Prophet]

]The purely logical proof is demonstrated by the instantiation of the concept of self or some other individualised entity in relation to the act. The evidential proof is simply to ask for a single instance of any act that doesn’t have a selfish attachment.

We've already talked about this. This is a concept you don't believe in. This is not a proof. This is you forcing your qualities into a concept of self which you don't believe exists. You cannot force your ideas upon it to make it easier to defeat and expect to have credit for having defeated my ideas.

Do you see how you habitually attempt to weaken my arguments by interjecting your own ideas and definitions and saying it must be so? Why can you not debate against my ideas as they are? Why would you not ask questions to clarify the terms rather than just interjecting your own meanings and concepts for any ideas you wish? Don't you feel that if I were to go after a theory of yours in a similar manner, I should be required to demonstrate why my interjections upon your theory more closely mirror the truth? You've supplied nothing like this, and I doubt any is forthcoming.

I want this to be respectful and a real exchange of ideas. I am trying my best to fully understand everything you say to me. However, we can devolve this into me versus you if you are determined to not understand me as it seems.

Forgive me but that’s a rather presumptuous thing to say in answer to the question I posed! We both know full well that countless people have died in saving, or attempting to save, a child’s life. What I said was that many a parent would willingly give up their own lives for that of their children. Or in other words, the love and maternal instinct is so strong in many cases that a parent would willingly forsake their own life to preserve that of their offspring, but how many people would volunteer to give up their lives for a stranger’s child?

I thought it was an odd example for you to give as proof or demonstration of your point. I tell you that the vast majority of life is trapped in a prison in their mind made of selfishness, and you offer that many parents wouldn't die for the children of others (but some would) as... a counterpoint? All your example demonstrates for me is that selfless behavior is rare to which I agree completely, but how is this contradictory to my theory in any way? What other things do you believe are demonstrated by your example which I am missing here?

We are all hypocrites! And those who deny it are immediately proved, by such high self-regard, to be what they claim they are not!

You sell this as a rebuttal, but this is just a reiteration and slight extrapolation of your hypothesis. You've not really responded to me, so I don't feel a real need to respond back on this portion beyond pointing this out.

Those are just religious platitudes. We don’t have to shout from the rooftops to announce our beneficence to the world. That warm glow of satisfaction, that pleasing sense of self-praise, those feelings still exists without the act becoming public knowledge and, as I’ve already explained, may serve as a self-justifying defence mechanism.

Whatever they may be, they are clear proof that someone thought of the problem you point out with selflessness being fake 2,000 years ago. If you wish to sweep this under the rug as fully irrelevant because it comes from a religious book, I feel justified in accusing you of clear bias in the matter.

 

[godnotgod]

[/color]

So if you don't know the answer of what came before,...

No, YOU don't know the answer because there is none. There is no 'before'. There is no 'First Cause'. The universe is cyclical and ultimately causeless. Your descriptions of cause and effect are linear, so you cannot answer my question. ALL MOVEMENT IS RELATIVE. Your MIND is moving.

...then you automatically decide that everything is an illusion?

Your argument does not follow. Everything is illusory because nothing exists independently of anything else. There are no 'things'. Nothing we call 'things' have any intrinsic essence nor permanent existence. Those are characteristics of illusion. Both classical science and Quantum Mechanics are now showing us that the solidity we thought atoms were composed of is not there. An illusion is defined as: "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality."

"Twentieth century atomic physics demonstrated that all matter is nothing but energy. The physical eyes of the human body of course cannot see objects as space or energy. Because of the limitations of visual perception, we see objects as colored forms with edges that appear to separate them from other forms. This is no more a “correct” way of seeing solid, three-dimensional objects than if one was to see them as luminous, amorphous, animated beings. However, it is what we are accustomed to.

The objects of the world are form only. The forms and their names go together in the mental process of perception and recognition. Both are projections on the non-dual reality, in the same way that images are projected on a screen. The images are only colored light, the light itself is uncolored. Objects, although they appear to have form, and are recognized by their names, are still non-separate from the space that pervades them. Space allows all the forms of the world to appear. But reality is subtler than space, because it is aware of it."

Illusory Nature of the World

That's just lazy. I would worry very much if somebody's parents start to think that their kids are an illusion.

Heh..heh...heh...they ARE!

If the kids get indoctrinated on that subject, then they will not care about the reality or our beautiful planet, and be a part of what's causing the world's problems.

What's causing the world's problems is man's ignorance about the nature of reality and of himself. When you understand your own true nature, you are directed by an intelligent force from within, that shows you how integral and dependent you are to your environment, which nurtures a caring relationship with it, and shows you that the world is itself conscious and intelligent. Our indoctrination, via 'education' and 'science', looks at the world as an object to be manipulated to our own profitable ends. The ongoing decimation of species and systematic destruction of the environment testify to that. That is the REALITY, not some pie in the sky notion of science creating a utopia. We are fooling ourselves in exactly the way we did with religion.

Science and education is the only way to fix our problems, and I think it will eventually.:yes: You see, I don't believe in science, I trust it, because it provides reality based evidence, and if many start to question it, then it gets revised based on new observations and analysis, until the absolute truth is found.

That's what you have been brainwashed to believe, but in reality, science, in cahoots with technology and big business, are what is directly responsible for the destruction of the environment. If you are still unaware of that fact, then I suggest you take off your rose-colored glasses for a moment and have another hit of polluted air and a bite of genetically-altered foods for starters. You trust science, and that is exactly what the fat cats want you to do. They've got you by the balls.

I suggest you to read a little at Universe Today and listen to some Astronomy Cast podcasts. You'll be amazed of what's out there.[/quote]

Look, I used to be a science major in college, OK? I know what it is about. It is not capable of cutting the mustard. For that we need an intimate awareness of our own nature. Ignorant beings pushing bulldozers around and creating wars with the use of science and technology ain't gonna get it. Maybe we'll find out 'what's out there' at the exact moment we all take our last gasping breath of toxic air. Oh, boy!

 

[godnotgod]

What does it mean that something is true? It means that it exists, it is real. Truth is not an idea or a set of ideas but is a word-pointer to that which never comes and never goes away, that which can always be relied upon. The words reality, truth, existence are all pointers to that which always remains. Truth has permanent being, or existence. That which is not true, on the other hand, does not have any reality and cannot exist, has never existed.

[The world is impermanent. It arises, and then subsides. Where did it come from? Where does it go? It behaves in exactly the same fashion as an illusion because that is what it is.]

It is characteristic of the ego that it believes that it knows everything it needs to know. Many people speak and act as though they know exactly what the world is like, the right way to live, the correct way to behave. They never question the validity of their opinions. Scientists, materialists, atheists, as well as believers in one or the other of the established religions, all feel that they have the inside track to the truth. And yet all of this scientific and worldly knowledge is knowledge of nothing. Knowledge of objects does not last. It disappears altogether when the knower goes to sleep. That which truly exists, the [eternal] Self, cannot be known because it is not an object. Can the eyes see themselves? Can the tongue taste itself? Can the knower know itself? The Self is what you are. You cannot get outside of it in order to know it.

We live in an interpreted world. The world in itself has no meaning; it has only the meaning that we give to it. A small child does not experience a world of things, of separate objects, but experiences only itself. Gradually, as concepts and beliefs accumulate, the world takes shape together with, and based on, the “I” sense. Nothing (no thing) is outside of that sense of one’s own existence. Everything (every thing) is contained within it. The multiplicity of the apparent creation emerges from the “I” sense like a great tree unfolding itself from a small seed. The appearance of the gross world depends on the thoughts and concepts of the subtle world, and the appearance of the subtle world depends in turn on the space and nothingness of the causal world. Before the beginning, there is nothing there, and then, in the beginning, is “the Word.” That word is “I.”

Illusory Nature of the World

 

[godnotgod]

It isn’t a paradox; it is a direct contradiction.

It would be if both desire and desirelessness were present at the same time. What is being said here, is that, while Enlightenment is the most desirable thing in the world, it cannot be realized as long as desire is present. Therefore, desire must first be present, and then surrendered.

To say that mankind, as sentient beings, are illusory is to say they imagine they do not exist. But if sentient beings imagine they do not exist, then self-evidently something corresponding to sentient beings must exist!

No, on the contrary! Sentient beings imagine that they, as separate egos acting upon the world, DO exist, when they do not. That is the illusion.

Logically there must always be an ulterior motive - or in plain terms, a motive. And by definition the giver doesn’t have what he wants if he wants something, ie the happiness of others. And ‘happiness’ implies a state devoid of unhappiness. That’s an example of dualism at work!

The giver is not giving to attain what the recipient needs. He already has that. That is why it is his to give. The key is to give without expectation of something in return. That makes the giving unconditional. What is returned unintentionally is also unconditional.

You're making things much, much too complicated and tortuous, cottage, when simplicity is called for. Just give without any thought in mind other than the giving itself. You want to intellectualize too much, and as a result, fail to understand the simple act of unconditional giving.

 

[godnotgod]

....essentially to this Self, you present a useless system whose basic ideas are anathema to me. It is an example, much like a large portion of the Abrahamic system, that stands on a pedestal which denies all of human nature as inherently bad. And the only way it sees to reach a positive outcome is to destroy that which makes us what we are. Call it whatever positive words you like, but I see this as an Orwellian exercise in disguising something which should be frightening.

Without self-respect and self-awareness there can be no love or caring for another. So saving all humanity by removing what makes it human, is simply not feasible. Nor do I personally find it acceptable.

All the while I have been saying that we need to awaken our true [human] nature as intrinsically good, and you think I am saying to deny it; that it is a bad thing? What is bad is not human nature, but the illusions we pursue that result in negative consequences, as the condition of the world testifies to. Basically, our nature is good, but misdirected by desire and ego, the driving forces that tempt and blind us to reality. We are socially programmed to pursue power, sensation, security, prestige, and adulation....all empty pursuits that result in misery for many. All we need do is to look at the recent economic fiascos in our country to see how we have been manipulated into believing a system of lies and deceptions that have resulted in ongoing suffering not only at home, but around the globe. It is the facade of what is good, perpetrated by the exploiters of human nature that needs to be destroyed.