The Debate of God.

[cottage]

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

The doctrine is the belief from faith, continually and dogmatically asserted without proof or evidence, in other words stated as if it were something true. Such doctrinal beliefs may be merely notional, or, as in this case, an enduring and obsessive preoccupation.

 

[cottage]

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.

Meditation and the act of expression are both examples of selfishness. And if a thing is to express it’s ‘true’ nature then ipso facto there must be a state of affairs that isn’t true. But if that state of affairs isn’t true then how can it be said there is a thing identified with this state that expresses its true nature?

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

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.

In that case why meditate? And more to the point, who or what is doing the meditating?

Causation itself is illusory.

Then so is every aspect of your argument, since it is necessarily grounded in the principle of cause and effect.

Here is just one of your examples:

“The clue to why the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world…”

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

A ‘word-thought’? Thought and mind are the same species.

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

More later.....

You’ve got yourself into a bit of a pickle here.
You said the illusory self is identified on the Third Level of Consciousness, but on the Fourth Level there is only “observation of the self and its thoughts”, simply watching the thoughts arise and subside.
I’m sorry but your every response just seems to be an exercise in covering your back. And that is a classic demonstration of a prior self-regard, where the argument must be adjusted to defend the sensibilities of the poster. But that’s all quite normal, actually.

 

[cottage]

'yours' and 'mine' are merely necessary conventions.

Indeed they are necessary, for you cannot make your argument without them!

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.

According to your argument there is a ‘True Self’ that exists prior to everything, and therefore there is a giver, a cause of the effect, but if there is a self there cannot on those terms be ‘unconditional giving’ as you said previously.
But while we’re on the same subject who or what are the recipients of this magnanimous unconditional giving? If there is only true reality then there are no grateful supplicants to receive this beneficence!

It.

So now an illusory ‘It’ or the True Self is asking questions!

We know we have been dreaming via awakening.

And how do you know beyond all possible doubt that you’ve awoken? Plainly you can no more answer that question than could Descartes, 375 years ago!

 

[Tiberius]

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

And you provided no evidence to support these claims.

Make all the claims you want. They're worthless until you can produce evidence.

Cause and Effect.

Time is measurable. Space is measurable. Is cause and effect measurable? If so, please tell me what units it is measured in.

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.

More unsupported claims.

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

QM behaves very rationally. It is very predictable.

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'.

Psychobabble. You provide nothing to show that what applies to dreams also applies to the real world.

Essentially, life is fiction; reality is illusion.

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

Irrelevant. Like I said, you can quote as many people as you want who agree with you, but that doesn't make you right.

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?

Oh, when I awaken? How arrogant of you, to assume that YOU are correct! You can't produce anything to back up your claims! Why should I believe a single thing you say?

 

[Marcion]

The debate of God is indeed closely associated with the debate of what is reality or rather what is primary and what is secondary.
To call the objective world a mere illusion is a hypocritical statement because the person who makes it, will not close his eyes and remain standing on the railway track when the "illusion of a train" approaches fast, he will step aside in order to save his life unless he is suicidal.

To call the objective world the primary reality and the subject a secondary and "newer" development is the ideology of most atheists.

Do you need to be religious to turn this around and state that all objects are a secondary development of a Cosmic or Absolute Subject?
No, you need not be religious but you do have to believe that the essence of the subject is more real than or primary to the object and that the individual subject is in essence a part of the Cosmic or Absolute Subject and that the latter can be realised by cleaning or surrendering the individual subject to it.

At the starting point of the Big Bang there is no time and space, so objective reality has no meaning. But is there already a Cosmic Subject within Whom the Big Bang occurs? If there is, then there is no way in which we can understand It because we as individual subjects cannot rationally understand anything that is outside time and space.

So to speak of God with an atheist is pointless because atheist states that the objective world [which you can only measure by means of using the senses] is the only reality and atheists believe there is no reality beyond time and space.

Just as religious fundamentalist, the atheist is bound by his limited outlook and self-imposed restrictions on where he is allowed to go with his mind. An atheist will never consider the possibility that the subject is primary to reality and the objective universe is secondary.

 

[Looncall]

The debate of God is indeed closely associated with the debate of what is reality or rather what is primary and what is secondary.
To call the objective world a mere illusion is a hypocritical statement because the person who makes it, will not close his eyes and remain standing on the railway track when the "illusion of a train" approaches fast, he will step aside in order to save his life unless he is suicidal.

To call the objective world the primary reality and the subject a secondary and "newer" development is the ideology of most atheists.

Do you need to be religious to turn this around and state that all objects are a secondary development of a Cosmic or Absolute Subject?
No, you need not be religious but you do have to believe that the essence of the subject is more real than or primary to the object and that the individual subject is in essence a part of the Cosmic or Absolute Subject and that the latter can be realised by cleaning or surrendering the individual subject to it.

At the starting point of the Big Bang there is no time and space, so objective reality has no meaning. But is there already a Cosmic Subject within Whom the Big Bang occurs? If there is, then there is no way in which we can understand It because we as individual subjects cannot rationally understand anything that is outside time and space.

So to speak of God with an atheist is pointless because atheist states that the objective world [which you can only measure by means of using the senses] is the only reality and atheists believe there is no reality beyond time and space.

Just as religious fundamentalist, the atheist is bound by his limited outlook and self-imposed restrictions on where he is allowed to go with his mind. An atheist will never consider the possibility that the subject is primary to reality and the objective universe is secondary.

Pretty impressive word salad. Congratulations.

Do you have any evidence to back up your view?

 

[cottage]

The debate of God is indeed closely associated with the debate of what is reality or rather what is primary and what is secondary.
To call the objective world a mere illusion is a hypocritical statement because the person who makes it, will not close his eyes and remain standing on the railway track when the "illusion of a train" approaches fast, he will step aside in order to save his life unless he is suicidal.

To call the objective world the primary reality and the subject a secondary and "newer" development is the ideology of most atheists.

Do you need to be religious to turn this around and state that all objects are a secondary development of a Cosmic or Absolute Subject?
No, you need not be religious but you do have to believe that the essence of the subject is more real than or primary to the object and that the individual subject is in essence a part of the Cosmic or Absolute Subject and that the latter can be realised by cleaning or surrendering the individual subject to it.

At the starting point of the Big Bang there is no time and space, so objective reality has no meaning. But is there already a Cosmic Subject within Whom the Big Bang occurs? If there is, then there is no way in which we can understand It because we as individual subjects cannot rationally understand anything that is outside time and space.

So to speak of God with an atheist is pointless because atheist states that the objective world [which you can only measure by means of using the senses] is the only reality and atheists believe there is no reality beyond time and space.

Just as religious fundamentalist, the atheist is bound by his limited outlook and self-imposed restrictions on where he is allowed to go with his mind. An atheist will never consider the possibility that the subject is primary to reality and the objective universe is secondary.

I think perhaps you've defined atheism in a way that suits your argument. As an atheist I have no dogmatic notions of what must be, other than that which I cannot without self-contradiction deny. God is logically possible, and so is the concept of necessary being devoid of all religious or mystical doctrine. So to say 'An atheist will never consider' etc, is a sweeping statement that seems rather prejudiced. Whatever the claim, it is either true, false, or simply to be treated as speculative metaphysics and neither true nor false. But if a thing is true I'm obliged to accept it as such, notwithstanding my atheism, ie my sceptical view of belief systems and mysticism. I'm always open to evidence or demonstration.

 

[cottage]

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'

You ‘suggest the possibility of a view that is universal in nature’. There is nothing wrong at all with that, since all things are possible, if they’re not logically absurd. So the ‘big difference’ is that you need to understand the difference between what is possible and what is actual or demonstrable. You’ve taken aspects of the Zen doctrine on trust, using an Argument from Other Believers, and then present a metaphysical notion here as if it were a truth. And this is made evident by your inability to explain true reality other than it terms of what it is not. But that leads to sophistry and self-contradiction, for without the sensible world meditation and transcendence have no role.

 

[godnotgod]

To call the objective world a mere illusion is a hypocritical statement because the person who makes it, will not close his eyes and remain standing on the railway track when the "illusion of a train" approaches fast, he will step aside in order to save his life unless he is suicidal.

His stepping aside does not mean that the objective world is not an illusion. It is that it is an illusion of an order higher than, say, the illusion of mistaking a rope for a snake. The person, the train, etc. are all illusory. They are form only. Even the event is an illusion. All 'things' and 'events' are illusion as seen from the viewpoint of the Absolute.

'The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivikenanda

That the person steps aside to save his life is a fundamental biological mechanism, which, as you mention, can be overridden if the person's mental state is more powerful.

 

[godnotgod]

And how do you know beyond all possible doubt that you’ve awoken? Plainly you can no more answer that question than could Descartes, 375 years ago!

Descartes was not awakened. He was still operating within the sphere of the rational, thinking mind. He was a philosopher, and reality is not a philosophy. As I said, there is nothing to figure out. Philosophy becomes a feather in the cap of the awakened.

How do YOU know when you have awakened from a dream?

 

[godnotgod]

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?

What is the origin of the concept of a 'self' if not the self itself?

Your analogy fails. A triangle is created by the application of conscious thought, not via itself.

 

[godnotgod]

The doctrine is the belief from faith, continually and dogmatically asserted without proof or evidence, in other words stated as if it were something true. Such doctrinal beliefs may be merely notional, or, as in this case, an enduring and obsessive preoccupation.

I agree, but where is this so-called doctrine you claim I have been espousing? Anything I have said thus far has merely been a pointing finger, and a pointing finger is neither belief nor doctrine. Now, if I had said something like:

"I who point am the Way, the Life, and the Truth, and if you do not believe in Me, you shall not know The Truth"

..then you can accuse me of foisting a doctrinal belief. But what I have consistently said instead, is:

"Go see for yourself"

SEE, not BELIEVE. Seeing is not a doctrine, because it does not involve thought, which doctrine requires.

"pondfrogleapsplash"

is NOT a doctrine!:no:

 

[godnotgod]

Meditation and the act of expression are both examples of selfishness.

The motive for meditation can indeed be selfish. That is why it is said that if you think you are going to become Enlightened by sitting on your meditation mat, you are deluded. That motive is called 'having a gaining idea'. However, at some point during meditation, the fictional self that maintains such a gaining idea drops away, so there remains only meditation itself, without a meditator, and hence, without a gaining, or selfish motive.

To say what you just said is like saying that breathing and walking are examples of selfishness, but selfishness is only a motive maintained by the illusory (small) mind. The unselfish (Big) mind does not exist to realize such ends, but is being itself without a motive for such being. Being is already the condition. It does not involve becoming, so no desire or selfish motive is of any import.

And if a thing is to express it’s ‘true’ nature then ipso facto there must be a state of affairs that isn’t true. But if that state of affairs isn’t true then how can it be said there is a thing identified with this state that expresses its true nature?

Either one sees things as they are, or one does not. When you see things as they are, there is no seeing things as they are not. There is only the rope; there never was a 'snake'.

 

[godnotgod]

‘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.

re: 'self' vs 'Self': a comparison can be made with the simple analogy of a wave on the surface of the sea. While both are made of the same substance, water, the wave is form, while the sea is formlessness. The wave emerges from the formless sea, and returns to it. It is temporal, while the sea is eternal, metaphorically speaking, of course. Were the wave capable of thought, it can either think itself a separate entity from the sea, which is an illusion, or think itself always a part of it. In thinking itself a separate entity, it is self-created. This is self. In thinking itself always a part of the formless sea, it realizes it is only empty form. It has no substantive existence other than its own thought of itself as real. There is no such thing as a 'wave', just as there is no such thing as a 'self', as both are energy events. In thinking itself real and separate from the source that is the sea, it creates an image of itself as an object, which is nothing more than a frozen concept invented and continually re-invented within consciousness.

You keep talking about the 'prior self', but you never explained its origin. 'Prior self' is an idea about something. What is it that is maintaining that idea?

It is not the temporal self that is involved in unconditional giving; it is the eternal, universal, unborn, ungrown, birthless, deathless, formless, impersonal, Self that is Pure Consciousness without thought that is involved. There is no self that gives; there is only the pure act of giving with no ulterior motive involved. It is quite simple, perhaps too simple for the rational mind to understand.

re: '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.':

Remember that the 'snake' (relative self) is still the rope (Absolute Self).

There is no separate 'giver' and 'receiver'. They are one and the same; there is only one action, and that is 'giving-receiving', since, as you say, the one cannot exist without the other. Also take note that, in the Yin/Yang symbol, each half contains within it the essence of the other.

 

[cottage]

Descartes was not awakened. He was still operating within the sphere of the rational, thinking mind. He was a philosopher, and reality is not a philosophy. As I said, there is nothing to figure out. Philosophy becomes a feather in the cap of the awakened.?

The conundrum raised is the issue here and not Descartes’ academic or cognitive status. Even if all rational thought is set aside it nevertheless remains the case that we are, or we are not, dreaming; and it is not necessary to think in order to dream of an ‘awakened’ state, for things come to us in our sleep whether we will them or not, just as they do in our waking state. The difficulty is to know which is which, and even that presumes that there is a distinction to be made.

How do YOU know when you have awakened from a dream?

I don’t! And neither do you! That is the point. There is no way to conclusively verify that we are not dreaming now. (It isn’t necessary for me to add that what you see as ‘true reality might after all be a just a dream, because there is not the slightest reason to believe that you have in fact seen any such a thing).

 

[cottage]

What is the origin of the concept of a 'self' if not the self itself?

That’s akin to asking an unbeliever what is the origin of God! There is no origin other than in the mind. The self, like God, is metaphysical and non-demonstrable, but is none the less logically possible. So if there is a God, or a self, then certain propositions will be logically true or false. If God is the Necessary Being then his non-existence is impossible (whether or not there is anything corresponding to that appellation). Similarly, if there is a Self then by definition its existence, needs and wishes are selfish, ie prior to anything that can be attributed to it, for the contrary would be selfless, which is a contradiction. This is in the same way that you cannot have a two-sided triangle

Your analogy fails. A triangle is created by the application of conscious thought, not via itself.

Yes! Exactly! And so is the self. As I’ve already explained above.

 

[godnotgod]

The conundrum raised is the issue here and not Descartes’ academic or cognitive status.

However, it is because of his cognitive status that he was unable to make the distinction. He was still approaching the question from the point of view of the thinking mind, rather than the awakened mind. His thinking mind was trying to figure out the issue rationally, an issue that is non-rational by nature.

Even if all rational thought is set aside it nevertheless remains the case that we are, or we are not, dreaming; and it is not necessary to think in order to dream of an ‘awakened’ state, for things come to us in our sleep whether we will them or not, just as they do in our waking state. The difficulty is to know which is which, and even that presumes that there is a distinction to be made.

I don’t! And neither do you! That is the point. There is no way to conclusively verify that we are not dreaming now. (It isn’t necessary for me to add that what you see as ‘true reality might after all be a just a dream, because there is not the slightest reason to believe that you have in fact seen any such a thing).

My question to you had to do with your ordinary nightly sleep-dream state compared to your ordinary everyday awakened state. When we awaken from the sleep-dream state, we KNOW that we are awake, and that we were asleep and had been dreaming, at least as far as our ordinary consciousness tells us. How do you know the difference?

It is the same way of knowing the difference between illusion and reality. There is something revealed to us in both states that shows us clearly the difference, and what shows us the difference is mind that knows the true state of reality. The reference for such knowing is always in place.

When we are dreaming, we do not know we are dreaming. Just the fact that the question of whether we are dreaming or not arose is an indication that something in our consciousness suspects something. Something is not quite right for the dream to be authentic reality, and we know it.

In the same way, in our state of waking sleep, the Third Level of Consciousness, or Identification, we do not know we are asleep, dreaming the 'reality' we only think is real, but for some, there is something telltale that they notice, that gives the dream away as a dream. That something is their true nature, partially awakened, that sees, that knows.

The ordinary man cannot tell the difference between a forgery and an original, but the expert eye can detect such differences. And so it is with the perfect vision of the awakened mind in its immediate detection of ordinary 'reality' as a dream.

One of Chuang Tzu's continuing interests was the issue of the interchangeability of appearance and reality. He sometimes asks (almost in a Cartesian way), 'How can we be sure of what we are seeing?

"Those who dream of the banquet may weep the next morning, and those who dream of weeping may go out to hunt after dawn. When we dream we do not know that we are dreaming. In our dreams we may even interpret our dreams. Only after we are awake do we know that we have dreamed. But there comes a great awakening, and then we know that life is a great dream. But the stupid think they are awake all the time and believe they know it distinctly."

"Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. This is called the transformation of things."


Chuang Tzu, Chinese Taoist

 

[godnotgod]

That’s akin to asking an unbeliever what is the origin of God! There is no origin other than in the mind. The self, like God, is metaphysical and non-demonstrable, but is none the less logically possible. So if there is a God, or a self, then certain propositions will be logically true or false. If God is the Necessary Being then his non-existence is impossible (whether or not there is anything corresponding to that appellation). Similarly, if there is a Self then by definition its existence, needs and wishes are selfish, ie prior to anything that can be attributed to it, for the contrary would be selfless, which is a contradiction. This is in the same way that you cannot have a two-sided triangle



Yes! Exactly! And so is the self. As I’ve already explained above.

So if the self is the result of the application of conscious thought, then it must be self-created, which is what I have been saying to you. In other words, it is an illusion! There is no 'self' prior to anything simply because it is a boogeyman!

 

[godnotgod]

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’?

Do you know your own nature?

 

[PolyHedral]

Do you know your own nature?

I'd be surprised, since it's impossible to know yourself precisely.