Why the NT was written in Aramaic and Greek

[outhouse]

Calling everything I bring 'nonsense' is pure twaddle!

Please pay attention.


I asked you a question.



Much of the NT was written in the DIASPORA, what Language was primarily used in the Diaspora?

 

[godnotgod]

Yet you appear very sincere about the import you attribute to mystic practices and spirituality. Why not take it seriously?

Why? Is the universe itself a serious affair?

You trust a film student against thousands of scholars and amateurs who describes a language that doesn't exist as authorities. You dismiss the authority of scholars and scientists but rely on "teachings" you get from youtube clips of people like Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra. You depend upon authorities just to read e.g., Hindu and Buddhist texts, and constantly refer to "authorities" like your film student. Whatever differences there are between us, reliance on authorities describes you far more than it does me, as you defend a hack like Alexander against scholars you can't read but a language you don't know and linguistic methods you've never heard of.

I only dismiss the 'authority' of scholars and scientists because their knowledge is incomplete. The rational mind is limited mind.

Now what exactly do you mean by 'people like Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra'? Are they lepers?

You've claimed that you [1] understand physics better than all physicists, [2] that you speak for all mystics, and you insultingly dismiss scholars of all types because [3] they are incapable of the understanding you possess. Compared to you, I and every scientist as well as all biblical scholars, linguists, etc., [4] are inferior to you, as you have pointed out over and over again.

I have never...ever... made a single claim of any of the above. All of that is only in your mind, which is obviously partially short-circuited.

You still aren't asking the right questions.

You should be receptive to anything that comes, without regard to right or wrong, and just answer the question as put forth.

'Pithy formulae" refer to koan. And given your remark about killing the Buddha (very telling, by the way), I have to ask: what do you know of what I know? How much of what you espouse reflects an actual familiarity with the concepts you purport to be a proponent of?

It's empty.

Indeed. And given that you have are pretty much wholly unfamiliar with the first, apparently not only uninformed about the second but also understand such traditions inaccurately (those you are aware of, anyway), I wonder how much of the final (most important) part is a product of well-known unconscious/perceptual biases, cognitive errors, etc. Impossible to tell, of course. But it would be interesting to know.

I just gave you the answers.

A point Plato made ~2,400 years ago.

Interesting how this same realization has come to many in different places and times independently of each other throughout the world. Some call it universal consciousness; Zen people call it 'Big Mind'.

If there is no self that "must" make that decision, then there is no self that can, making the question useless because the answer is either "yes", in which case one need not ask the question, or "no", in which case one cannot make any such decision.

Yes, but you see, it's all delusion to begin with. Even when the decision is made for suicide, there is no decision-maker; no one that dies. There is no asker of the question, and no answerer either; nor is there a do-er or a not-do-er.

That wasn't the arugment. Ego* sum, ego* existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum

["I am, I exist, however many times it is put forward by me, or [is] held in my mind, is true necessarily"]

The argument begins by assuming that there is no "thinker of thoughts". That's the first Meditation. In the 2nd, Descartes asked if it can be true, and answers by noting that merely asking "do I exist?" requires there to be a cognizant "I". In other words, to be able to ask "do I exist?" requires an "I" to ask this question, for if there were not "I", no mind or conscious entity, then this question could not be asked.

Oh, joy! Now you've done it! Now tell me: who is it that requires an "I" to ask the question?

I say it to you once again:

'The mind is a self-created principle'

There is no cognizant "I": there is only cognizance.

There is no ocean wave; there is only waving.

There is no river that flows; there is only flowing water.

Noted fraud, not scholar. Whatever your personal inabilities to free yourself of dogmatic faith in such a source, the views you or anybody else unfamiliar with Aramaic, scholarship, or Aramaic scholarship express do not make him a "noted scholar", just "noted".

One, I find his explanations very scholarly, and two, he has translated and published an Aramaic-English New Testament Pe****ta based on the Khabouris Codex, firmly establishing his notoriety, if not also his scholarship. What do you find un-scholarly about his explanations? I assume you watched the video I provided.

...and please don't launch into your bit about the 'fraud' surrounding the Khabouris, OK? I'm only referring to Roth's rationale in the video.

You made sensational erroneous statements based on faulty logic about what you think I meant about various issues above; you maintain a shooting gallery of straw men like Alexander, Chopra, Goswami, myself, and I am sure an endless string of other unclean 'unworthies'. Just a suggestion: are you aware that this is a pattern in your psyche, and that these caricatures you paint are, in reality, nothing more than dummies set up by your ego for its own gratification? You know, the intellect loves to play these games; it's the same game the religious fundie plays, called spiritual one-upsmanship. It's just a bit different for atheists and other intellectual types, but both are extremely clever and deceptive and difficult to detect. With the fundie, it's 'holier than thou', and even 'more unworthy than you', which is pride in reverse. For the atheist/intellectual, it's 'I'm smarter than you', so I'm better than you', with all its sordid implications. Both are connected to the machinations and interplay of Persona/Shadow and scapegoating.

So. Are you ready for another fine day at the Knock-Em Dead Arcade? We've got all your favorites set up just for you today.

You can't get me cuz I'm hip to your trix. nyah! I love what someone said about Aikido: dance into the empty spaces. Zen is like that too. Nothing to attack; nothing to get; nothing. Absolutely nothing.

*Interesting that the Latin 'ego' refers to "I", which is illusory.

 

[godnotgod]

Time To Learn

A young but earnest Zen student approached his teacher, and asked the Zen Master:
"If I work very hard and diligent how long will it take for me to find Zen."
The Master thought about this, then replied, "Ten years."
The student then said, "But what if I work very, very hard and really apply myself to
learn fast -- How long then ?"
Replied the Master, "Well, twenty years."
"But, if I really, really work at it. How long then ?" asked the student.
"Thirty years," replied the Master.
"But, I do not understand," said the disappointed student. "At each time that I say I
will work harder, you say it will take me longer. Why do you say that ?"
Replied the Master," When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."

 

[outhouse]

Much of the NT was written in the DIASPORA, what Language was primarily used in the Diaspora?

 

[outhouse]

When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."

And when neither is on the truth, your lost

 

[godnotgod]

When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."

And when neither is on the truth, your lost

'Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish your opinions'
6th Zen Patriarch

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I only dismiss the 'authority' of scholars and scientists because their knowledge is incomplete.

This is simply not true. You have referred to their biases, to their indoctrination, and worst of all to their ignorance of subjects you do not know relative to the claims of someone you cannot evaluate. Nor do you even attempt to find out if the slanders you pile upon scientists and scholars are found in their scholarship, because you do not read it. You claim that Alexander is superior to specialists in biblical, Semitic, and textual critical studies without knowing whether he has the manuscript he claims or how it is that his "native Aramaic" relates to the various Aramaic dialects over the past 3,000+ years.

The very deficits that result from your dismissal of scholarship are integral to your incapacity to evaluate whether any native speaker of "Aramaic" would matter here and, if so, to what degree.

Now what exactly do you mean by 'people like Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra'? Are they lepers?

No (and was the lepers a reference to Roth's youtube clip? why "lepers"?). Just part of a vast group of people who prey upon the ignorant and sell sensationalism to the gullible. I actually would group both with those like William Lane Craig, Michael Behe, Silver Ravenwolf, Gandy & Freke, etc.

I have never...ever... made a single claim of any of the above.

Not in this thread. If you wish, I will quote you making each claim I asserted you have.

You should be receptive to anything that comes

This from one who has dismissed the entirety of scholarship in multiple ways without being familiar with any of it?

It's empty.

Signifying nothing? Well, "all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death"

I just gave you the answers.

No, you just misinterpreted translated quotes incompletely supplied to you through mainstream media you rely on for your knowledge of "the mystic" as opposed to those who spend years and years yet do not make the sweeping, arrogant, and dismissive clams you do. Even your heroes, for the most part, have advanced degrees. You have no training, no such educational background, and have supplied as evidence of your understanding (whether it by of Japanese koan, the mysteries of antiquity, or quantum physics) websites and youtube clips.

Some call it universal consciousness

That is not what people call the fact that "descriptions of reality are not reality itself".

Interesting how this same realization has come to many in different places and times independently of each other throughout the world.

Yes- Descartes, Kant, Saussure, Husserl, Wittgenstein, etc. It's so much a given in Western philosophy that it is also a given in the cognitive sciences.

there is no decision-maker

There is no thinker of thoughts.

Are you capable of thought?

who is it that requires an "I" to ask the question?

The asker.

There is no cognizant "I": there is only cognizance.

You do realize that this entails an "I" by definition, right?

There is no ocean wave; there is only waving.

"Not waving, but drowning"

there is only flowing water"

What do you rely on to interpret what you quote? From the teachers and traditions of Zen masters to the schools of Indian Buddhism (or Buddhisms), what we find consistently is training, practice, and a teacher. In fact, this has defined mysticism since before there was an English word. The Mysteries of Mithras required initiation, Jesus and Pythagoras taught disciples just as Bodhidharma‎ and Siddhārtha Gautama were said to have.

And you?

I find his explanations very scholarly

I don't doubt. However, you don't read scholarship, and have no basis for comparison. Nor do you know anything about Aramaic (in any dialect or time period) or Semitic languages in general (or dialects in general, or linguistics, or Jesus' time period, etc.).

based on the Khabouris Codex

Ah, yes. Yonan's second attempt at fraud and bringing us back to Metzger, who was as to authenticate "the Yonan Codex" by being lied to and having his expertise abused "The Saga of the Yonan Codex" by B. M. Metzger

One again we find your sources relying on scholars and real experts, but making sure that they lie about what such experts actually say.

After that scandal, Yonan and a collegue went out to find the rest of their codex:
"Mr. Yonan and an associate, Mr. D. MacDougald, committed their energies to the pursuit of a complete version. According to their own reports (which may be exaggerated or even fabricated) they discovered the present manuscript in a small Assyrian monastery on the River Khabor, a tributary of the River Euphrates, and hence gave their discovery the name the Khabouris Codex. They claimed to have enlisted the support and aid of the abbot in deciphering some of the text, and purchased the codex from the monastery and brought it to America. Mr. Yonan interpreted the worn and damaged colophon of the manuscript and a subsequent inscription to date it between 195 AD and 410 AD; making it, as he explained in his press-release, potentially older than the Yonan Codex, the Codex Syriac Sinaiticus, the Cureton Codex and the Jerusalem Codex. However, doubt was raised by a number of scholars after Yonan's death in 1970. Correspondence from 1986 shows that the British Library experts had dated it paleolographically to about the twelfth century, and this has now been confirmed by a research team assembled in America in 1995, as well as by carbon dating by the University of Arizona in 1999 (giving the date range 1000-1190 AD). " from a discussion at pe****ta.org

So, not only is the Khabouris a re-hash of the Yonan scam, only with an added bonus of an colophon which doesn't actually give a date, but has something which Yonan interpreted and "which if Yonan's decipherment is accurate indicates that the manuscript?s ultimate exemplar was written in the period 195-410" (from the link above). Only somehow the online community turned this into an misundestanding.

And finally, as nobody knows the history of the document and it isn't in exactly great shape (you can see the pages yourself, which include unreadablle portions), all we have is a late medieval Syriac which is supposed to be a copy of a manuscript which predates any known Syriac manuscripts, but not necessarily Greek, and certainly not Greek fragments.

There's a reason why this codex is basically absent from collections, catalogues, and scholarship on the Syriac language, textual tradition (including but not limited to the biblical portions) and textual criticism: it was bogus 50 years ago and not much has changed. There are better Syriac texts which don't involve speculations about a colophon which is just about impossible to read and doesn't actually give a date.

firmly establishing his notoriety

As a lying fraud, yes.

I assume you watched the video I provided.

I did. And this isn't the first time we've covered Roth.

I'm only referring to Roth's rationale in the video.

You want me to provide a critique of every error made in that garbage just to have you dismiss each criticism anyway? I'll tell you what- you give me some claims he makes in it that you think particularly well-made, persuasive, and important, and I'll address them. That way, we both save ourselves so much trouble: I don't spend time writing several posts on all the problems there are, and you don't spend time dismissing these by referring to various sources, my agenda, scholarly bias, or the kind of understanding you used to ask for archaeological remnants of a "town center" in 1st century Nazareth

You made sensational erroneous statements based on faulty logic

Someone once said

The rational mind is limited mind

You criticize me for mere use of logic and rationality, and then fault me for being illogical. What faulty logic?

are you aware that this is a pattern in your psyche

My responses to you? You're the only fundamentalist "mystic" I've ever met.

nothing more than dummies set up by your ego for its own gratification

But you are, of course, free to think whatever you want. There is no opinion you could have of me that would be worse than my own.

You don't pay very much attention, do you? All those quotes about the worthlessness of life & the pointlessness of existence, and you think my self-hatred is somehow overcome because I know more than you about these topics? It's knowledge, not intelligence. What was my compulsive pursuit to know all that I could about everything I was interested in was a burden even then. It exists now only as distractions; an artifice of what used to be is now a way to fake that there exists a reason to keep get up day after day after day, and you think this boosts my ego?

Understandable, I suppose. It's not the first time.

The question, like the pursuit of the horizon, is which of us is Pozzo and Lucky, and which Vladamir and Estragon.

it's the same game the religious fundie plays

I'm not the one imitating the "KJV-only" crowd with Pe****ta primacy.

the Latin 'ego' refers to "I"

Actually it's the first person nominative of the personal pronoun, equivalent to the Greek ἐγώ

 

[godnotgod]

That is not what people call the fact that "descriptions of reality are not reality itself".

That's not what I said. Universal consciousness is how that is determined.

Yes- Descartes, Kant, Saussure, Husserl, Wittgenstein, etc. It's so much a given in Western philosophy that it is also a given in the cognitive sciences.

When I say 'many', I mean anyone to whom it has occurrred.

Are you capable of thought?

Yes, but I'm not attached to them as them being 'my' thoughts. No 'I" exists to whom they belong.

The asker.

So there is an agent of thought you are calling 'the asker'. Who is it that recognizes the 'asker' as such?

You do realize that this entails an "I" by definition, right?

On what grounds? Cognizance is just a state of consciousness. No agent of cognizance, a 'cognizer', is implied nor required. But now, there is a cognizer of the cognizer of the cognizer, ad infinitum, nothing more than a reverberant echo of an initial illusion.

'Whirling water' does not require an agent of whirling called a 'whirlpool'. That is just what the conceptual mind calls it so it can get a handle on it. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'. There is only whirling water.
Likewise, there is no discoverable agent of thought called 'I"; there is only thinking, without a think-er.

What do you rely on to interpret what you quote?

Conscious awareness, that sees things as they are. Get 'I' out of the way, and what is present? You should know this, if you have made any progress in your meditation training. Are you not familiar with Japanese Zen and the idea of 'no-mind'?

My responses to you? You're the only fundamentalist "mystic" I've ever met.

An oxymoron. There can be no such thing, as mystics are not experiencing reality via doctrine. Union with the divine nature within is completely without doctrine or philosophy.

You don't pay very much attention, do you? All those quotes about the worthlessness of life & the pointlessness of existence, and you think my self-hatred is somehow overcome because I know more than you about these topics? It's knowledge, not intelligence. What was my compulsive pursuit to know all that I could about everything I was interested in was a burden even then. It exists now only as distractions; an artifice of what used to be is now a way to fake that there exists a reason to keep get up day after day after day, and you think this boosts my ego?

Yes. All that you describe is pure ego. It's because you are intellectually-centered and have no spiritual center you are aware of. That condition only creates a cold, brittle empty shell filled with desire for nourishment, but from the wrong sources. It's a disease of Western 'culture', if you want to call it culture. Have you never stopped to reflect on your motivation for this insatiable 'quest for knowledge', and why it has resulted in dissatisfaction; in being unfulfilled?

Realize that there is no 'day after day after day'. There is only one long day.

[The Buddha] used the following parable to illustrate the attitude of those who cannot distinguish between what is useful and what is not:

"Suppose someone was hit by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives found a doctor able to remove the arrow. If this man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out until I know whether the person who had shot it was a priest, a prince or a merchant, his name and his family. I will not have it taken out until I know what kind of bow was used and whether the arrowhead was an ordinary one or an iron one.' That person would die before all these things are ever known to him."

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bs-s16.htm

I'm not the one imitating the "KJV-only" crowd with Pe****ta primacy.

That is an apple/orange analogy, as all Western NT's are derived from the Greek NT. There is only one Eastern NT and it is the Pe****ta.

Actually it's the first person nominative of the personal pronoun, equivalent to the Greek ἐγώ

ego : I, self.
source: Latin-English Dictionary

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's not what I said

Descriptions of Reality are not Reality itself.

A point Plato made ~2,400 years ago.

A point Plato made ~2,400 years ago.

Interesting how this same realization has come to many in different places and times independently of each other throughout the world. Some call it universal consciousness; Zen people call it 'Big Mind'.

I responded to your statement that descriptions of reality are not reality itself by pointing out that Plato made that point centuries ago. You noted how "interesting" it is that "this same realization has come to many in different places and times", but then continued by stating "some call it universal consciousness" and something about some translation you read somewhere regarding a term "Zen people" use.

Only that isn't what Plato realized, as the statement that descriptions of reality differ from reality is an assertion about that there exists a divide between the object and the symbols, words, signs, etc., we use to refer to it. Nothing about this relates in anyways to some "universal consciousness". It refers to the distinction between langue & parole, le signifié et le signifiant, and our Ausdrücke and the Bedeutung of each. For Plato, the divides between our descriptions of reality and reality itself is one of his most important themes: that of "forms" or εἴδεα.

I'm not attached to them

None of your thoughts are yours? Apart from the problem of someone arguing that they can't argue anything, what it is to be "attached to" thoughts? Or to say

No 'I" exists

In what way are you attached to the thoughts you express? When you say "but I'm not attached to 'my' thoughts", what "I" is not attached to something? What is this "I" not attached to? And why not?

So there is an agent of thought you are calling 'the asker'.

No. It might behoove you to gain some familiarity with Descartes argument before disagreeing.

Descartes assumed radical skepticism in which there was nothing that existed, not even himself. But how might one pose the question of whether one exists? Easily. I can simply ask "Do I exist?"

When you say things like "when I say 'many'..." or "that's not what I said" (both statements are in your post), you signify something by using the first person. To assert "I say" is to claim that there is something said by an entity distinguishing itself merely by noting that it expresses things as a product of itself rather than anything else. In other words, the "I" in "I say" is the indivisible, unified conscious entity that is not only self-aware but incapable of reflecting on that self apart from that self.


People frequently make statements such as "my stomach hurts" or "my body can't handle the stress" or "I was so tired my brain just wasn't functioning". In other words, there is no conceptual equivalency between one's concept of self-awareness expressed by "I/me" and one's physical existence. The mind, consciousness, self-awareness, etc., are conceptualizations of one's indivisible unity and equally one's distinction between the expression of this conceptualization and everything else including the body and even brain that produces it.

Who is it that recognizes the 'asker' as such?

Wrong question. Ask instead why it is impossible for the asker to recognize the asker as other than that which is the asker.

On what grounds?

Consciousness refers to the conceptualization of one's self without an ability not to do so. One cannot be cognizant (aware or aware of something) without being that unified entity distinguished from what one is aware of. To be cognizant/aware of one's environment, of one's physical condition (in pain, warm, cold, grasping, holding, etc.), of one's emotional state (happy, sad, irritated, etc.) of one's cognitive state (confused, muddled, attentive, etc.), and so on is to rely upon the dynamically (and constantly) emerging conceptualization of a unified experiencer/cognizer distinct from what one is cognizant of.

there is a cognizer of the cognizer of the cognizer, ad infinitum

There is nothing of the sort. Hence indivisibility and unity of self/"I"/cognizer/etc. One cannot reflect and that which one relies on to reflect, and that which one relies on to reflect is consciousness/awareness/cognizance.

'Whirling water' does not require an agent of whirling called a 'whirlpool'.

And books don't require unicorns to cook meals for leopards, colorless green ideas do not require furious sleep, and the borograves do not require the mome raths to be outgrabe.

The point of an analogy is to make a meaningful comparison.

conceptual mind

Redundant

there is no discoverable agent of thought called 'I";

1) Agency is an entirely different matter. "Agent of thought" describes that which is the set of mechanisms behind thought (whether individual or universal) that is also a conscious entity. It's akin to saying that your brain is a self-aware agent that enables your consciousness and deliberately does so (i.e., your brain has it's own "I" and acts, both deliberately and consciously, to produce your consciousness).
2) The entire point is that there can't be a discoverable "I" in the way you suggest, for to discern or discover that which we require to discern and discover would mean that we had no such capacities.

Conscious awareness

Redundant.

Get 'I' out of the way, and what is present?

A computer, a rock, etc. 'consciousness" refers to the "I"

(I await with anticipation it were weak to call rapture for your other-worldly, eclectic, internet-based explanation of how consciousness is really some amalgamation of terms you find pretty)

You should know this, if you have made any progress in your meditation training.

How would you know? You've never had any training.

Are you not familiar with Japanese Zen and the idea of 'no-mind'?[/COLOR]

You skipped over the adage of the archer (maybe you didn't understand it), so I will add to it: all is mu, therefore there is no pursuit of perfection only the realization of perfection.

An oxymoron.

That's what I thought. But as I said I'll be happy to quote you on the ways in which you have claimed the omniscience to speak for all scientists and sciences, define mystics, characterize all religions, etc. Alternatively, your Aramaic primacy is almost identical to the KJV-only fundamentalists, but with less evidence of anything.

All that you describe is pure ego.

You're the one with god-like omniscience defining all religion, mystics, and science.

That condition only creates a cold, brittle empty shell filled with desire for nourishment, but from the wrong sources.

You're wrong, of course. Understandably, as you find the fastest and quickest way to reinforce views you had to begin with and continually validate these by circular reasoning, contradictory methods and views, and a fairly complete dismissal of any attempt to climb out of the little box you've placed yourself in to declare yourself king of mystics and the quintessential exemplar of all things esoteric.

My focus on intellectual pursuits began when I was not an empty shell and it was not what nourished me (no, that's not altogether true; it did, it just was relatively unimportant). And now that I am a shell I find no nourishment in any endeavors, intellectual or no.

It's a disease of Western 'culture',

Your problem is that you are still thinking 'East' and 'West'. There are no such things.

You're a westerner accessing "the mystic orient" through the internet. You are a product of Western culture, as much as I am, only one of us has practiced, trained, and studied non-Western culture, while the other uses Google to misquote Einstein and use grammatically incorrect Sanskrit as a member title.

Have you never stopped to reflect

I have, but you ask about two entirely separate thing. The "quest for knowledge" has to do with the fact that I was interested in many things and I gained much satisfaction (albeit with a fair amount of frustration) from this quest. That ceased, but it had nothing to do with anything academic, anything intellectual, or anything relating to knowledge (or pursuing it).

Realize that there is no 'day after day after day'.

Pay attention to the way transition "from day to day to the last..."
[youtube]4LDdyafsR7g[/youtube]

Ian McKellen as Macbeth ("Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow") - YouTube

There is only one long day.

"un jour nous sommes nés, un jour nous mourrons, le même jour, le même instant, ça ne vous suffit pas?"

That is an apple/orange analogy

You defend the use of a text you can't read in a language you don't know on the say-so of websites you've found while dismissing scholars you haven't read for their arguments you don't know in order to make claims about the primacy of one NT over all others.

Apples and oranges are both fruits.

There is only one Eastern NT and it is the Pe****ta.

The main Eastern NT is in Greek (the Western was in Latin even in the 20th century).

ego : I, self.
source

I'd say something about sources here, but the real issue is you aren't even able to understand what I said enough to realize how meaningless your response is.

 

[godnotgod]

I responded to your statement that descriptions of reality are not reality itself by pointing out that Plato made that point centuries ago. You noted how "interesting" it is that "this same realization has come to many in different places and times", but then continued by stating "some call it universal consciousness" and something about some translation you read somewhere regarding a term "Zen people" use.

Only that isn't what Plato realized, as the statement that descriptions of reality differ from reality is an assertion about that there exists a divide between the object and the symbols, words, signs, etc., we use to refer to it. Nothing about this relates in anyways to some "universal consciousness". It refers to the distinction between langue & parole, le signifié et le signifiant, and our Ausdrücke and the Bedeutung of each. For Plato, the divides between our descriptions of reality and reality itself is one of his most important themes: that of "forms" or εἴδεα.

Then your Plato reference to what I initially said is invalid.

My initial statement that: "this same realization has come to many in different places and times" implies that universal consciousness is responsible.

None of your thoughts are yours? Apart from the problem of someone arguing that they can't argue anything, what it is to be "attached to" thoughts? Or to say

In what way are you attached to the thoughts you express? When you say "but I'm not attached to 'my' thoughts", what "I" is not attached to something? What is this "I" not attached to? And why not?

There is no personal investment in them. "I" is used only as a convention. There is no "I" that encapsulates thought as it's own. There is only the illusion of "I" that thinks it does.

No. It might behoove you to gain some familiarity with Descartes argument before disagreeing.

Descartes assumed radical skepticism in which there was nothing that existed, not even himself. But how might one pose the question of whether one exists? Easily. I can simply ask "Do I exist?"

The problem is with the question. It assumes 'existence' and 'non-existence' as real, separate conditions, when in actuality they are two halves of the same reality. Furthermore, in asking the question, he assumes the presence of an agent that is capable of either. The fact is that there is neither existence nor non-existence. The question is not about becoming or not-becoming, but about what is. IOW, there is the all important distinction between existence/non-existence, and being, the former being a dual set of relative values, the latter absolute. Descartes was focused on his temporal form, and not the intemporal formlessness from which it emerges.

According to Descartes, thinking is evidence of existence. So when one is not thinking, then one apparently is not existing.

When you say things like "when I say 'many'..." or "that's not what I said" (both statements are in your post), you signify something by using the first person. To assert "I say" is to claim that there is something said by an entity distinguishing itself merely by noting that it expresses things as a product of itself rather than anything else. In other words, the "I" in "I say" is the indivisible, unified conscious entity that is not only self-aware but incapable of reflecting on that self apart from that self.

But the very fact that it sees itself as a 'unified conscious entity', it establishes itself apart from all other things, when, in reality, it is completely integrated at all times with the 'external' world. In fact, it is the external world, 'internal' and 'external' being mere concepts. In short, the "I" is a product of a trick of the senses, but alas, it is a product of the past because it is held only in memory, and therefore a 'has-been'.


Alan Watts comments on "I"

I am ever reluctant to admit that I am dead, my only
recourse is to work and struggle to give this "has/been" a
semblance of life to make it continue, move, get somewhere.
But because it is dead, and has all the fixity and permanence
of an unchangeable fact, this "I" can only go on being what
it was. Like a machine, it can only repeat itself ad nauseam,
however fast it may be run.

Thus when the dead man talks, he gives us the facts; he tells
all and says nothing. But when the living man talks, he gives
us poetry and myth. That is to say, he gives us a word from the
unconscious not from the psychoanalytical garbage^can, but
from the living world which is not to be remembered, of which
no trace can be found in history, in the record of facts, because
it is not yet dead. The world of myth is past, is "once upon a
time*', in a symbolic sense only in the sense that it is behind us,
not as time past is behind us, but as the brain which cannot
be seen is behind the eyes which see, as behind memory is that
which remembers and cannot be remembered. Thus poetry
and myth are accounts of the real world which is, as distinct
from the dead world which was, and therefore will be. The
form of myth is magical and wonderful because the real world
is magical and wonderful in the sense that we cannot pin it
down, that we do not understand it because it under/stands us.

 

[godnotgod]

"un jour nous sommes nés, un jour nous mourrons, le même jour, le même instant, ça ne vous suffit pas?"

For the rest of us, this is:

"one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, same time, it's not enough for you?"

Who is it that is born? Who is it that dies?

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong question. Ask instead why it is impossible for the asker to recognize the asker as other than that which is the asker.

Why do we need the 'asker' at all? Let's just cut out the middle man, and simply ask the question, without constantly having to reflect on who is doing the asking. Why must there be a personal attachment to the asking of the question? Note that the concept of an 'asker' only exists when one thinks about it. Otherwise, there are times when one asks a question without thinking about who is doing the asking. One does not disappear as a result. The "I" is pure nonsense.

So when we eat, there is an eater?
When swimming, a swimmer?
When sleeping, a sleeper?
And on and on Ad nauseum. This makes for an innumerable number of selves.

There is only eating, swimming, and sleeping, with no accompanying agents of same.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For the rest of us, this is

Beckett. Of course I never did like relying on others' translations, but Becket did translate his own play. So here's his versions:

"Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you?"

Vous n'avez pas fini de m'empoisonner avec vos histoires de temps ? C'est insensé ! Quand ! Quand ! Un jour, ça ne vous suffit pas, un jour pareil aux autres il est devenu muet, un jour je suis devenu aveugle, un jour nous deviendrons sourds, un jour nous sommes nés, un jour nous mourrons, le même jour, le même instant, ça ne vous suffit pas"

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.

Of course. More quote-mined translations you get from your internet "mysticism". Not that the internet isn't a valuable source, just your selective use of an beginning amateur's subjective interpretations. Do you really believe you understand what you espouse? It is so distinct from the very traditions you pretend to know something of while you spout nonsense about "Western" views you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into you cannot even recognize how distant your "mystic" understanding of East and West (which you have, in this thread alone, both suggested is illusory and insisted is essential) fails to reflect the dichotomy you both insist exists and (at least once) denied exists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why do we need the 'asker' at all?

More modality issues.

We do not "need" it any more than we "need" 1+1 to equal 2, or sought to be different than north. For someone who has in so many (mostly consistent) ways referred to "that which is" vs. perceptual-conceptual constructs, you certainly ignore your own approach whenever useful (although I believe you do this honestly; it is not an attempt to misrepresent).

I explained in detail what is entailed by merely asking the question "do I exist?" and expanded upon this. I gave you the reasons why an "I" exists quite apart from a nearly 5 century old argument.

The "I" is pure nonsense.

According to whom? And based upon what thoughts?

You assert that you don't exist as a singular entity and that you are incapable of thought. To the extent you express any thought, it's not your thought. You've expressed far better than I could ever argue that there is nothing in anything you say that could possibly matter as you are unable to think.

Personally, I disagree with your assessment, and believe you are quite capable of thought.

So when we eat, there is an eater?

Yes. That's true by definition. An eater is defined this way. The same applies to the rest of the nonsense questions except:

This makes for an innumerable number of selves

Wrong. Let's examine how. You rely entirely on verbal morphology to express a verb as a participle/gerund. To illustrate the issues here:

"When we carpent, is there a carpenter?"
"When we doc, is there a doctor?"
"When we pres, is there a president?"

When we engage in activities, from running to assassinations, we are not defined by these any more than we are by the color of our skin, our racial background, or any minority groups we identify with.

"When we Jew, is there a Jewish?" It's a fundamental attribution error (among other things) and confuses properties with identity.

There is only eating, swimming, and sleeping, with no accompanying agents of same.

The fact that you are unable to distinguish descriptions of reality from reality such that you confuse a property of an "I" with some activity, role, etc., shows nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

Beckett. Of course

Oh, but of course!....uh...would you mind passing the Grey Poupon?

Of course. More quote-mined translations you get from your internet "mysticism". Not that the internet isn't a valuable source, just your selective use of an beginning amateur's subjective interpretations. Do you really believe you understand what you espouse? It is so distinct from the very traditions you pretend to know something of while you spout nonsense about "Western" views you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into you cannot even recognize how distant your "mystic" understanding of East and West (which you have, in this thread alone, both suggested is illusory and insisted is essential) fails to reflect the dichotomy you both insist exists and (at least once) denied exists.

Attacking the pointing finger....again! Such a nasty habit!

The question is, do YOU understand; never mind all your mental machinations and assumptions about MY motive.

 

[godnotgod]

Beckett. Of course I never did like relying on others' translations, but Becket did translate his own play. So here's his versions:

"Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you?"

Vous n'avez pas fini de m'empoisonner avec vos histoires de temps ? C'est insensé ! Quand ! Quand ! Un jour, ça ne vous suffit pas, un jour pareil aux autres il est devenu muet, un jour je suis devenu aveugle, un jour nous deviendrons sourds, un jour nous sommes nés, un jour nous mourrons, le même jour, le même instant, ça ne vous suffit pas"

(response to wretched excess)

 

[godnotgod]

More modality issues.

We do not "need" it any more than we "need" 1+1 to equal 2, or sought to be different than north.

You are the one who stated the 'required' "I". Your entire argument for "I" is pure assumption on the part of your self-created, illusory "I". It is one of the primary flaws of the rational mind, one which it itself is unaware of, or rather, in denial of. The ego does everything in its power to perpetuate its illusory existence, deception being its exquisitely honed tool. The fact of it's illusory nature is right under our very noses, right out front, but only on rare occasions does one catch a glimpse of it. I am sorry you have spent years under esteemed masters only to never have understood this very primary stage toward the realization of one's enlightenment. There is so much intellectual baggage in the way that you would be extremely lucky to have even a fleeting glimpse of what I have been referring to. However, once detected and observed, it is unmistakable.

 

[godnotgod]

The fact that you are unable to distinguish descriptions of reality from reality such that you confuse a property of an "I" with some activity, role, etc., shows nothing.

Pure twaddle. Again, you present an assumption of an "I" that exists. None of your arguments have shown in any way that such a creature exists in reality, other than those presented by the "I" itself. Of course "I" is going to do everything in its power to claim, rationalize, and perpetuate an existence: it loves adulation and approval from others. I (heh, heh) however, refuse to stroke your ego, and that is why you continue your relentless attacks, which only serve to provide chuckles on this end.

So-and-So from Such-and-Such a place has credentials coming out of his ears and does'nt miss a single opportunity to let everyone know it, while condescending to anyone who dare challenge it's shameless Fawlty Towers.

Not to worry. I shall keep it's widespread Fame our little secret. Shhhhhh!

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. That's true by definition. An eater is defined this way. The same applies to the rest of the nonsense questions except:

Right. Defined, and its existence rationalized, reinforced, and perpetuated by the eater himself. As I said, the mind is a self-created principle. IOW, it's an illusion.

(See it's immediate response which is, of course, protest, even anger.)

Just because the water in the teapot boils when placed over a fire does not mean there is a fire-agent that dwells within the fire.

You apparently have never been exposed to, or experienced, during meditation, the Observer, which is a state of conscious awareness a step above that of Identification, which is the 3rd Level, in which one 'identifies' with a skin-encapsulated ego called "I". This 4th state of consciousness is also called 'Self-Transcendence', in which the illusory (fictional) state of the "I" is clearly observed. (Of course, the 'Observer' is just a tool used by consciousness; there is no such agent of observation as 'the Observer'.)

 

[godnotgod]

Existence vis-a-vis Being
Rene Descarte vs. Alan Watts
Cutting to the heart of the matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=146DBJ0kvuE