The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Attachment (sin) and ignorance have a definite relationship. They both precede the other. One's own ignorance causes one to sin. One's sin causes others to become ignorant. And so on.

I think we mostly agree here, but let me know if you see something I don't. I have limited attention at the moment.

If one is ignorant, one may unwittingly do something that has negative, undesirable, or even evil consequences fully thinking you are doing something 'good' with no intent to sin in mind.

Sin is generally associated with being fully aware that what one is doing is harmful, and then doing it anyway.

 

[Tiberius]

I still haven't seen much in the way of demonstrable fact to support what you are saying, GNG...

 

[godnotgod]

I still haven't seen much in the way of demonstrable fact to support what you are saying, GNG...

The act of seeing itself is the demonstrable fact, assuming your eyes are opened.

 

[PolyHedral]

The act of seeing itself is the demonstrable fact, assuming your eyes are opened.

IOW, assuming I already agree with you?

 

[godnotgod]

IOW, assuming I already agree with you?

Show me the doctrine I want you to agree with. No one has yet been able to produce it.

 

[Tiberius]

The act of seeing itself is the demonstrable fact, assuming your eyes are opened.

You know, I don't have any idea what your point actually is.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you summarize your point in one sentence?

 

[nnmartin]

who is your God, Tiberius?

 

[cottage]

Exactly why it must be surrendered. In other words, a 'gaining idea'. Once again, while Enlightenment is the most desirable thing there is, one must become desireless as desire is an obstacle to its realization. There are many descriptions of this transition, but in Zen terms, the desire for Enlightenment is the workings of what is termed 'small mind'. When it is given up, Big Mind can come into play, which is universal, selfless mind. The illusory self is the state of Identification on the Third Level of Consciousness. During meditation, the Fourth level is entered upon, wherein there is only observation of the self and its thoughts, so from this vantage point, there is no such 'obsessive self-regard' whatsoever. There is simply watching, without attachment, the stream of thoughts as they arise and subside. One is not attaching to them as 'my' thoughts.

‘One must become desireless.’ Those are your very words! In order for one to ‘become’ it is the case that one must first already be something, and the act of becoming is an act of change, an effect, which requires a cause. And anyone (or thing) that meditates is first answering a selfish need (small mind?), which seeks satisfaction, contentment or fulfilment, ie what you call ‘Big Mind’, which is necessarily selfish, as shown further down the page. But of course if meditation, along with every other factual experience, is illusory then it can’t be claimed that ‘Enlightenment’ is known by such means.

‘When it is given up’; ‘…the Fourth Level is entered upon’; ‘During meditation’; ‘Big Mind can come into play’; ‘…the stream of thoughts as they arise and subside’. All causal! And even an illusion answers causally to what is real or actual.

You say there are ‘small minds’ and ‘Big Mind’, in other words there is mind.

And ‘observation of the self and its thoughts’ is giving consideration to the self!

Now we can begin with the assumption that you wouldn’t want to say that the ‘stream of thoughts’ is false. And if the True Self is seen as ‘a stream of thoughts then it follows that the thoughts must belong to the True Self, for self-evidently it makes no sense to say the True Self’s thoughts are not the True Self’s thoughts. Therefore the thoughts are necessarily identified with the True Self, and its thoughts are prior to any action or event, real or imagined, that comes about as a result of its being what it is. Hence if there were no True Self there could be no thoughts, no phenomenal world, and no illusions, no anything in fact.

Of course! The snake, while illusory, is none other than the rope.

Can something that does not actually exist exhibit cause and effect, or only the illusion of same?

I’m just quoting you! You said: ‘The true Self plays hide and seek’. And according to your argument the phenomenal world is illusory and cannot be the cause of itself; therefore the phenomenal world is an effect with the ‘True Self’ as its cause. So your argument is necessarily contingent upon cause and effect, a feature of the phenomenal world!

Having your udders constantly in a bunch must be painful for you, but I will admit you are both consistent and persistent in your tortured logic.

No, there is no self that is happy. There is only happiness itself. Remember, the self is illusory.

But you are saying there is a self that is unhappy! Remember this: “You cannot develop a genuine concern for others until you are happy. Until then, your focus is your own selfish desires.” But if it is unhappy it cannot then be illusory, for it is self-evident that if things imagine they are unhappy then they are something.

 

[cottage]

Not having an expectation is the state of being 'without conditions'. It is not a deliberate act of will, a state that is not arrived at via thought, so there is no 'cause and effect'. It simply exists as a result of being in a selfless state of mind. They go hand in hand.

Cause and effect isn’t necessarily an act of volition but essentially a relationship between two events, where B follows A; and where there are no Bs there are no As, as in “It simply exists as a result of being in a selfless state of mind.” And your words again: “They go hand in hand” (In other words if no A, then no B, but you confirm that one thing answers to another and therefore A>B in this case). And of course there is an expectation, which is that the ‘result’, ie the effect, will be efficacious.

 

[cottage]

But since the self is illusory, a fact you agree to, there can be no such animal. It is the illusory self (in this case, yours) that is determining that a self is moving a hand, when, in fact, there is only 'hand-moving' without a 'hand-mover'.

The self isn’t illusory it is non-demonstrable. And actually it isn’t the case that there can be no such animal (unless of course you can make a demonstration to the contrary?) But you cannot argue there is ‘only hand-moving’ when you’ve argued previously that all physical phenomena is illusory; so how can you tell me, as you did, to ‘move my hand without any thought in my mind’ if I don’t exist as a mind?
Every step of the way your argument confirms and assents to the notion of self, which cannot be illusory and at the same time necessary for your argument.

 

[cottage]

Unless, as I have noted several times, there is another kind of Self that is involved in the giving that is the universal, unborn, ungrown Self, that is not "I", that cannot be encapsulated in concept or form as the self-centered egoic self can. It is the pure consciousness involved in the act of unconditional giving for the pure sake of it, without ulterior motive. Apparently that is totally inconceivable to you, but it is true as a rule that most of us do give with some expectation in mind, though it is unspoken but implied.

‘Another kind of Self’? (!) There is only one kind of self viz the following:
The metaphysical notion of a self is an identity that belongs to the thing, and nothing can be attributed to it, or be caused by it unless it first exists. And whatever else it is, and whatever it does, must be conditional upon its own prior existence and self-interest, thus it is self-contradictory to describe it as selfless or be ‘involved in an act of unconditional giving. The prior self is two-dimensional: metaphysical and evidential. The former comprises an internal truth, where the predicate cannot be separated from the subject without self-contradiction, although, as with all metaphysical notions, the subject and predicate can be rejected together. The latter is proved both logically and empirically true: there can be no logical necessity for a contingent self, but where such a thing is instantiated its priority is likewise demonstrated in the case of any action, positive or negative, which denial once again leads to a contradiction.
Pure consciousness simply means mind in a context distinct from the corporeal form, and by definition it is self-aware, which demonstrates the priority. And ‘giving’ implies a need, or the gifting of a benefit, but the needy recipients cannot exist if you say they are illusory. And since giving also requires a receiver we see once again the reliance on causation.

Nothing is ‘totally inconceivable’ to me; all things are possible unless it can be shown otherwise. The difference between us is that I must acknowledge that I may be proved wrong, while you make airy statements about discovering absolute reality while declaring it as a truth and yet never moving on from baseless assertions.

And so, I am saddened to say, it is YOU, in thinking that black and white Logic and Reason are infallible, that is missing something, a something that is the essential missing something in all of your nicely polished and laid out, but unfortunately faulty arguments, and which should be the basis for them, instead of the cold and calculating logical mind. Your clinical logical reductionist objectivity is missing something on the other side of the equation that would lend balance to it. In order to have a holistic view of reality, you need both sides, not only what comes from the head. You have clinically dissected the moth down to the utmost minutiae, but fail to tell us just what 'moth' is, because you are trying to do that via concept rather than via insight into the true nature of 'moth'.

In that entire paragraph you are really saying nothing at all, other than to condemn me for using logic, necessary truths, and reason. And on that same subject you say my arguments are ‘faulty’, but an argument is only faulty when it is shown to be wrong in some way: so please show me where it is wrong? Anyone reading the above paragraph must be waiting with baited breath for you to go on to reveal the secrets of the world. But the disappointing anti-climax should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed this debate when once again it comes abruptly to an end, in this case with you having the cheek to speak of my (acknowledged) inability to know the true nature of things, while offering not least indication of what you claim it to be. But now is your chance. So tell us, what is the true nature of ‘moth’?

 

[cottage]

Sounds like a new religion to me, LOL.

"I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No man gets the goods lest he believe in the non-demonstrable Prior Self, which is invisible, odorless, tasteless, formless, and silent.":bow:

Some folk have the psychological disposition that makes them suggestible and inclined towards belief or faith systems. But nobody is obliged to believe-in anything. But we cannot but believe-that certain things are true when they are self-evident.

I do not reject the 'Logical Brain'; I reject ONLY the Logical Brain.

If you acknowledge the former then your latter statement is a contradiction. But you realise that now, I’m sure.

What is illogical is that it is the self itself that is responsible for the creation of the notion of a 'prior self'. Too bad you cannot see that simple fact.

If I may say so, you have a peculiar understanding of what is illogical: ‘The self itself creates itself’! Does a triangle create itself in order for its three angles to be equal to two right angles? Do I need to explain further?

 

[cottage]

Not necessarily. That is where your logic is faulty. There is not necessarily a 'self' that moves anything; there is, in reality, as I said, only 'hand-moving', without a 'hand-mover'. The notion of a hand-mover that is a prior self is purely a concoction, but one that seems logical.

This is what you said:
”Secondly, move your hand without any thought in your mind. See? No thought of self is necessary for an act of giving to occur. “
I think you mean no thought is necessary for physical movement, which is quite true, although reflexes and instinct still protect the source. But the term ‘your’ is possessive, as is ‘my mind’. So if I’ve moved my hand, with or without any thought in my mind then those objects represent me, and not some other. And if there is ‘I’, and a ‘me’ and ‘my mind’, then there is demonstrably a self that is prior to the movement of the hand. Again, I’m only following your arguments, which returns you to the experiential world every time.
And what may I ask is the ‘act of giving’ that has been so generously displayed by the movement of my hand?

BTW, did you cook up this notion of a 'prior self' all on your own; that is to say, via of the prior self?, LOL.

:biglaugh:

And who, or what, is it that wants to know?

Are you sure you're not hallucinating?

:no:

Are you?

‘When it is a question of metaphysical certainty, one cannot deny that there are not sufficient grounds for being absolutely assured, when one observes that one can in the same way imagine, being asleep, that one has another body, and one sees other stars and another earth, without there being anything of the sort. And may the most intelligent of men study this question as much as they please, I do not believe they can give any reason which would be sufficient to remove this doubt…”
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and the Meditations.


The only way that Descartes could come to terms with this perennial problem was by presupposing God, which he did by reasoning from his infamous Cartesian Circle. But for the rest of us poor heathens we’ve no way of conclusively verifying whether or not we are dreaming. If there were such a way I’d dearly love to hear of it.

 

[godnotgod]

You know, I don't have any idea what your point actually is.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you summarize your point in one sentence?

Yes. That which your rational mind thinks is reality, is not.

 

[godnotgod]

‘One must become desireless.’ Those are your very words! In order for one to ‘become’ it is the case that one must first already be something, and the act of becoming is an act of change, an effect, which requires a cause. And anyone (or thing) that meditates is first answering a selfish need (small mind?), which seeks satisfaction, contentment or fulfilment, ie what you call ‘Big Mind’, which is necessarily selfish, as shown further down the page. But of course if meditation, along with every other factual experience, is illusory then it can’t be claimed that ‘Enlightenment’ is known by such means.

It isn't. It is Enlightenment itself.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"We practice zazen to express our true nature, not to attain enlightenment."[/SIZE][/FONT]
Shunryu Suzuki

Expressing our true nature via meditation is what Enlightenment is.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We don't need to attain something we already have.[/SIZE][/FONT]

A pond whose water and mud are churned up does not become another pond when water and mud settle so that one can see clearly to it's bottom.

‘When it is given up’; ‘…the Fourth Level is entered upon’; ‘During meditation’; ‘Big Mind can come into play’; ‘…the stream of thoughts as they arise and subside’. All causal! And even an illusion answers causally to what is real or actual.

Causation itself is illusory.

You say there are ‘small minds’ and ‘Big Mind’, in other words there is mind.

Mind is just a word-thought to represent a state of conscious awareness. There is no such entity that is a 'mind'.

And ‘observation of the self and its thoughts’ is giving consideration to the self!

That is to say, observation of a mental concoction that is thought to be a 'self'. No. It is completely illusory!

More later.....:candle:

 

[godnotgod]

This is what you said:
”Secondly, move your hand without any thought in your mind. See? No thought of self is necessary for an act of giving to occur. “
I think you mean no thought is necessary for physical movement, which is quite true, although reflexes and instinct still protect the source. But the term ‘your’ is possessive, as is ‘my mind’. So if I’ve moved my hand, with or without any thought in my mind then those objects represent me, and not some other. And if there is ‘I’, and a ‘me’ and ‘my mind’, then there is demonstrably a self that is prior to the movement of the hand. Again, I’m only following your arguments, which returns you to the experiential world every time.
And what may I ask is the ‘act of giving’ that has been so generously displayed by the movement of my hand?

'yours' and 'mine' are merely necessary conventions. Again, there is no "I" that moves a hand, just as there is no "I" which gives; there is only giving itself, without a giver, as there is no 'hand-mover'. What exists prior to both hand-moving and giving is only consciousness, without thought, without an agent of consciousness.

And who, or what, is it that wants to know?

It.

Are you?

‘When it is a question of metaphysical certainty, one cannot deny that there are not sufficient grounds for being absolutely assured, when one observes that one can in the same way imagine, being asleep, that one has another body, and one sees other stars and another earth, without there being anything of the sort. And may the most intelligent of men study this question as much as they please, I do not believe they can give any reason which would be sufficient to remove this doubt…”
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and the Meditations.


The only way that Descartes could come to terms with this perennial problem was by presupposing God, which he did by reasoning from his infamous Cartesian Circle. But for the rest of us poor heathens we’ve no way of conclusively verifying whether or not we are dreaming. If there were such a way I’d dearly love to hear of it.

We know we have been dreaming via awakening.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. That which your rational mind thinks is reality, is not.

So, two questions. Well, three, really.

1. If what my rational mind is experiencing isn't reality, what is it?
2. And if my rational mind isn't experiencing reality, how CAN I experience reality?
3. Do you have any verifiable evidence to support your claims? I mean, apart from quotaations by people who agree with you? Unsupported claims, after all, are unsupported claims, no matter how many people they come from.

 

[godnotgod]

So, two questions. Well, three, really.

1. If what my rational mind is experiencing isn't reality, what is it?

A: The Absolute, as seen through the glass (ie; rational mind) of Time, Space, and Causation. The rational mind is a conditioned view of reality.

And if my rational mind isn't experiencing reality, how CAN I experience reality?

A: Via transcendence of the rational mind and its conceptual overlays.

1. Do you have any verifiable evidence to support your claims? I mean, apart from quotaations by people who agree with you? Unsupported claims, after all, are unsupported claims, no matter how many people they come from.

A: You and I both know that I have answered this question for you several times. If you cannot understand my answers, then I suggest you cease to seek an answer, and simply continue to live within the confines of your rational mind that is satisfied with 'verifiable evidence' as the ONLY means of verifying what is true of reality. The only clue I can offer you at this point is to suggest to you the possibility of a view that is universal in nature, and is outside the workings of the discursive mind, a view that only SEES into the nature of reality, without having to THINK about what it sees. There is a big difference between these two views, though it may not seem to be to most people. But the paradox is that, as the Buddha said, 'Ordinary Mind is none other than Buddha-Mind'. The Zen way of putting it is:

'Before Enlightenment, trees are just trees & mountains just mountains. During one's study, trees are no longer trees, and mountains no longer mountains. After Enlightenment, trees are once again trees, and mountains once again mountains'

 

[Tiberius]

A: The Absolute, as seen through the glass (ie; rational mind) of Time, Space, and Causation.

But by your own statement, time and space and causation must be unreal if they are not part of reality.

And what the hell is causation anyway?

A: Via transcendence of the rational mind and its conceptual overlays.

How have you determined that this leads you to reality instead of just something you think is reality?

A: You and I both know that I have answered this question for you several times. If you cannot understand my answers, then I suggest you cease to seek an answer, and simply continue to live within the confines of your rational mind that is satisfied with 'verifiable evidence' as the ONLY evidence. The only clue I can offer you at this point is to suggest to you the possibility of a view that is universal in nature, and is outside the workings of the discursive mind, a view that only SEES into the nature of reality, without having to THINK about what it sees. There is a big difference between these two views, though it may not seem to be to most people.

You may think you have answered the question, but you have not. You have never explained how you have verified that your techniques provide you with the truth and not just something you think is the truth. When you provide such verification, then we'll talk.

 

[godnotgod]

But by your own statement, time and space and causation must be unreal if they are not part of reality.

Yes, that is what I said. Time, Space, and Causation are illusions.

And what the hell is causation anyway?

Cause and Effect.

How have you determined that this leads you to reality instead of just something you think is reality?

There is only reality and illusion, and the belief that the illusion is reality. We now live in what we think is reality. The only other possibility is reality itself. When no thought is formed about it to represent reality, we are then seeing it directly.

In the field of science, Quantum Mechanics has now demonstrated to the rational mind that reality does not conform to classical scientific concepts.

When you awaken from a dream, you KNOW that your dream was not reality. It is the same on this plane of existence: when you awaken from this dream within Waking Sleep, you KNOW it is a dream; you KNOW that the character you were playing is fictional, one that you became lost in and came to believe as real. Awakening is the realization that the character is unreal and his world are nothing more than props in a cosmic drama we call 'life and death'.

Essentially, life is fiction; reality is illusion.

'Fundamentally, not one thing exists'
3rd Zen Patriarch

You may think you have answered the question, but you have not. You have never explained how you have verified that your techniques provide you with the truth and not just something you think is the truth. When you provide such verification, then we'll talk.

No, when YOU finally awaken, we will talk. Then again, there will be nothing to talk about, since you will know that what I am saying is true. Is there any reason why what you see and what I see should be any different?

Clue: Don't you think it just a bit odd that you are even here, Tiberius?