Everything Is Nothing.

[Oli]

I accept I do not know everything; in fact there is very little I do know. But, what I think I know I want to share. What I think I know may be wrong, what you think I may know may be wrong; what do I know? I want to explain why everything is nothing…

To start with, everything has a reason. It has to, otherwise it would not be. Nothing is random; to me this thought is absurd. How can something be random? Everything has to have a reason. Some things appear to be random to us, only because we do not fully understand them. Quantum physics, radioactive decay, God? All these things we simply cannot understand at this moment in time so they are perceived as ‘random’.

So, if everything does have a reason, why things happen when they do have to have a reason; again, nothing is random. So this means fate is true, everything is inevitable. Things are meant to happen when they do as everything has a reason for being. Everything is inevitable as it does happen, it is the maximum and minimum and every possibility that could happen. If there was another way, this would have happened. But it didn’t, what happened, happened because it had to. Everything has a cause; those causes themselves have a cause with everything having a reason.

This makes free will an illusion. Everything is simply inevitable, due to all the causes that make things inevitable. Our minds make the choices it does because of certain causes. We are influenced in some way to do everything we do. Free will is an illusion.

I also believe consciousness is an illusion. My consciousness is the thoughts in my head, that voice that thinks. These thoughts are voices that are created by my brain to give me a sense of control. Humans need a sense of control, or order, otherwise we cannot handle what is going on and go crazy. The voice that speaks in my head is also influenced from different causes. It speaks the language I have grown to learn. Without learning that language, there would be no voice or thoughts, simply imagery or picture based thoughts that associate with what I see and think about. If I could not see, I would not know how to think with pictures. How does a person born deaf and blind think? If the voice that I call myself my consciousness is created by my brain, my mind, then it is not a separate entity. A free consciousness is an illusion.

We think of ourselves as the centre of the universe, as “I am” is the only certainty to us. But is it? If we can not fully be sure of everything else, what makes us so sure that “I am”? When I think, it is my brain that is making a lot of neuron connections that creates a voice from the language I have learned and then these connections are linked with many more neuron connections to create a sense of being and awareness. If this is something created by a very complex muscle, which we may not fully understand yet, then how can it be a separate entity that is ‘free’?

I have come to realise that the only constant in existence is change. Everything changes. Why? Well, it has to; it has a reason for being. It could be there to change something else, or itself to change in turn causing another change. Everything changes. So, I grant myself serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change those I can, and wisdom to know the difference. The things I do change will be inevitable, likewise the things I don’t.

It was inevitable that I would write this, and inevitable that you would read this. Events and actions have caused this to be inevitable. I was meant to write this, you were meant to read it.

In our minds, it is how we respond to stimuli around us (the things we see, hear, taste, smell and touch) that makes us think the things we do. Our opinions are what make our personalities and character. If we do not have opinions, or we do not respond in any way to the stimuli, then our minds cannot create the thoughts associated giving us the personality. The voice of our thoughts could be absented if we do not take attachment or opinions to anything. If we do not label anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’, have no opinion, then we have no reason to have any thought about something. We can simply accept it is there.

As we get close to enlightenment, our opinions are eliminated, eradicating any ego, meaning we kill the thing that makes us human. If we no longer think, when our minds are dead, we exist on a higher level. Religious people believe that when we die we can go to heaven. Buddhists believe to live is to suffer. So when we are enlightened, our bodies may not be dead, but when our minds are gone, clean, free, dead… then we reach heaven. Nirvana. No more thoughts. No more need for anything.

If you don’t have the will to care, it cannot affect you. Not responding to any stimuli cannot affect us if we do not let it. We can be affected physically on our bodies, but nothing can affect you mentally unless you let it.

Now, on the concept of everything: Everything is everything, both opposites and opposite ends of the spectrum so to speak. Everything is nothing. Thinking about this it does make sense. The more I know, the more I don’t know. The more I think I know the truth, the further I really am from the truth. The more I am sane, the more I am insane. Opposites are so infinitely close that I believe they are simply the same thing. It even works in maths, with zero equalling infinity. They both have the same properties in mathematical equations. 0.999 recurring equals one, so it shows that the infinitely small gap is zero. If you want the proof:

X = 0.99999…
100X = 99.99999…
99X = 99
X = 99/99 = 1

Yes this is something infinately small, but it is still infinate. Something infinately small, is also something infinately big. So, everything is nothing. Infinity is zero. Yin and yang, they are both part of the same circle. They both need each other to be, every opposites do. One thing cannot exist without it’s opposite. So they are the same thing in affect, both completing each other. Everything is nothing.

If everything is nothing, we do not need the thoughts associating with everything. There is no need for any opinions or thoughts. Every thought you have will have its opposite thought. When you have an opinion on something, saying something is good for example, there is always some part of you that will always think something about it is bad. If you labelled something good, there has to be bad about it from your perception. Usually we are ignorant of the other side to things, so we create the one-sided opinion most people have on some things. It is only your perception on something labelling it good or bad. Nothing is perfect, nothing is imperfect. Or, everything is perfect and imperfect at the same time. Everything is nothing.

The only thing to love is love.
The only thing to hate is hate.
The only thing to fear is fear.

[Winfried]

I must disagree with you on that one.
First of all, I am a big fan of the chaos theory, which quite basically states that "it just happens", and does so randomly. It could've happend different and in fact, if you look at the quantum theory (didn't study that one too deeply though), it does happen differently, but what we see happening is this one random thing.
And I just don't like the idea that something else controlled my life from the start, leaving me no choices at all, but only to live my part.

Second, I agree that the opposite of one thing is needed to complete that thing. But stating they're the same appears to me as complete nonsense. Or my mind just doesn't like the idea. I may never know.

I never heard of the number zero being infinite, to me it was learned that the number zero meant nothing.

The difference between 0.99999.... and 1 is extremely small, not infinitely small. There is an end to everything, even if it seems there isn't. Infinity is by definition endless.
One more, totally unrelated thing: math, however it may seem as absolute truth, exists only in the mind.

If you truly believe in your own story, which isn't mine to doubt, then the three lines at the end must look more like this:
The two things to love are both love and hate.
The two things to hate are both hate and love.
The two things to fear are both fear and courage.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"I never heard of the number zero being infinite, to me it was learned that the number zero meant nothing"

I disagree with this strongly, I too was taught that zero means nothing. Which is why it means everything! Consider if you will the earth, at one point it was nothing, a zero, but over the ages though Darwins theory of life it evalved from a zero to a five or an eight. You see everything starts out as nothing and ends being something, so zero may be nothing at first but it grows into something over time B)

[TruthSeeker]

Oh no! Not again! :lol:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55364
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55181


I've just finished an entire discussion about that! :rofl:

:blink:

[buzzlightyear1982]

"I've just finished an entire discussion about that!"

What was your view point?

[Smurf]

haha!!

*dances joyfully*

:D :thumbsup:

yes yes yes yes!!

love it Oli!!

My thoughts EXACTLY!

And I just don't like the idea that something else controlled my life from the start, leaving me no choices at all, but only to live my part.

an illusion, someone else controlled your life? Nothing has ever conrtolled your life; you created control in your mind. What is "control"? There is no "control".

[buzzlightyear1982]

"you created control in your mind"

I agree with this...you chose rathe to submit or to protest B)

[Winfried]

Well, now I'm really confused...
In the opening post there was the idea that everything has a reason, so my entire existence must have a reason. And now it is said that There is nothing controlling me, but it is only me, and yet I have no free will?

Confusing... <_<

[buzzlightyear1982]

Instead of having someone else explain their point of view read every arguement, be sure to read between the lines, and consider every argument in a differant perspective. Then come to your own conclussions B)

[TruthSeeker]

What was your view point?
Nothingness may exist in two independent scenarios:

1) The universe is finite and nothingness exists outside the boundaries of the universe. In this scenario, there is a "boundary" between nothingness and something- which is kind of strange and maybe impossible.

2) The universe is infinite and nothingness somehow exists underlying everything. In this scenario, the question is whether it is possible that everything has a hidden layer of nothingness.

All speculations... I don't think anything can be proven or disproven here... <_<

[Smurf]

Well, now I'm really confused...
In the opening post there was the idea that everything has a reason, so my entire existence must have a reason. And now it is said that There is nothing controlling me, but it is only me, and yet I have no free will?

Confusing..

:D yay we confused Winfried! Though I agree this concept is very confusing at the best of times, I find it difficult to go anywhere near nothing and not be confused. It has wondeful and varying properties.

ok, listen:

There is a reason to everything, yet there is nothing controlling you
There is no control, there is no wonderful deity that takes your every move

yet there is the cause and effect that is apart of everything, that combined with our limited consciousness and time it creates the illusion that we have our on way through life. This is not the case... we have limited brains so our choices are limited to our principles and beliefs that make up combined with a bit of human nature our way through life. Nowhere in life is there free will, you are always making decisions that are based upon your principles, yet you would say that they are principles that are good, tel me what is good? what you choose it to be? You live your life through the design of your psyche, your mind, your brain...

damn that was completely confusing :uhoh: :o I don't think I made sense, but if there was sense in there then don't throw it away as nonsense :P

[Thomas Knierim]

Oli: So, if everything does have a reason, why things happen when they do have to have a reason; again, nothing is random. So this means fate is true, everything is inevitable.

This conclusion is wrong. A causal universe is not automatically causally closed. Fatalism does not follow from causality.

Oli: Some things appear to be random to us, only because we do not fully understand them.

This question is moot. Quantum mechanics certainly appears to introduce randomicity into nature. But even a perfectly deterministic process, such as the movement of molecules in gases is quasi-random.

X = 0.99999…
100X = 99.99999…
99X = 99
X = 99/99 = 1

Line 3 is wrong. It should say 99x = 98.999...

Oli: Something infinately small, is also something infinately big.

The notion of infinite smallness, or the infinitesimal, is a mathematical abstraction. It is not equal to infinity, or an infinitely large number.

Therefore, the following does not follow:

Oli: So, everything is nothing. Infinity is zero.

The argument -in its current form- is flawed.

Cheers, Thomas

[Oli]

This conclusion is wrong. A causal universe is not automatically causally closed. Fatalism does not follow from causality.

Why? If 'everything' has a reason, does events and the time of events not fit into 'everything'?

Line 3 is wrong. It should say 99x = 98.999...

99.99999... - 0.99999... = 99. ?

The notion of infinite smallness, or the infinitesimal, is a mathematical abstraction. It is not equal to infinity, or an infinitely large number.

The gap in between 0.99999... recurring and 1 is infinately small. It is not a defined value, and goes on forever. Is this not infinate? How can there be a difference between something infinate and something 'largerly' infinate? Infinity is infinity.

[Thomas Knierim]

Oli: Why? If 'everything' has a reason, does events and the time of events not fit into 'everything'?

What you propose here is known as determinism. "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly random events occur." (wikipedia)

In addition, you have proposed that all future events are predetermined, because they can be traced back to causes in the past. This position is known as fatalism and the accompanying theory is sometimes dubbed "iron block universe".

My objection is that fatalism doesn't follow from determinism. For fatalism to be true, you require causally closed spacetime, ore respectively a causally closed spacetime subset. This means you need a spacetime subset that contains all events which will cause the future events in the same subset. No outside causes are allowed. Otherwise the observed spactime set is causally incomplete with regard to the future and thus cannot be said to be predetermined.

It is easy to think of examples of causally closed systems. For example, billiard ball events on a billiard table are causally closed. However, casually closed abstractions are naive, because they disregard external conditions, for example the manufacturing process of the billiard ball which may have introduced slight irrregularities into its surface. You will find that causal chains stretch out far into the world and into the universe very quickly.

Therefore, fatalism cannot be concluded from determinism alone. You also need causal closure as a second premise. Both determinism and causal closure are questionable.

Oli: 99.99999... - 0.99999... = 99. ?

Okay, but then you need to introduce the subtraction line "100x - x" into the proof (since multiplication 99 x 0.999 would yield 98.999), otherwise the proof is incomplete. This proves that the recurring decimal 0.999 is equal to one, or rather that the infinite series 9/10 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 ... + 9/10^n with n -> infinite is equal to one. It does not refute the concept of the infinitesimal, neither does it show that infinity is the same as infinitesimal. And it certainly doesn't show that everything is nothing, because nothingness and totality are altogether different concepts.

Just for completeness, the infinitesimal cannot be expressed as a decimal number. It is defined as a positive number which is smaller than any real number.

Oli: How can there be a difference between something infinate and something 'largerly' infinate?

I think first of all it is necessary to understand that infinity and infinitesimal are mathematical concepts and that they don't have phenomenal counterparts, at least none we know of. Everything we observe is finite. Infinity and infinitesimal are therefore purely abstract concepts. Interestingly, this means also that there cannot be continuity in nature, since this would imply infinite divisibility.

Second, you simply have to look at the definitions:
Infinitesimal: x is infinitesimal iff nx < 1 for all n of N
Infinity: x is positively infinite iff x > r for all r of R and negatively infinite iff x < r for all r of R

They look different, don't they?

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

I don’t want to see anyone base his or her entire philosophy of life upon some flawed mathematics!
The problem with Oli’s math is in the handling of the number of significant digits:

If you define (x) to be 0.99999999……. with in this case eight significant digits (the zero can be treated as a significant digit but in this case we are only concerned with the nines), you need to stick to that definition throughout your mathematical operations.

Then, 100(x) = 99.999999 Again, eight significant digits

Now, subtracting (x), 99.999999 – 0.99999999 = 98.999999 NOT 99

Then, 98.999999 / 99 = 0.99999999 = (x) as we started out with.

I don’t know what this proves in a great philosophical sense, but it does prove you need to
Watch your significant digits if you want to prove your point using mathematics! :nono:

AS for the infinitesimal, all who have studied the calculus can affirm that it can be considered to be equal to zero ONLY when it is standing alone. If it is in a ratio of infinitesimals, it has the same importance as any other mathematical operand and cannot be discarded.

[Thomas Knierim]

schrodinger: The problem with Oli’s math is in the handling of the number of significant digits

I think Oli meant 0.999... with recurring 9s, i.e. with an infinite number of 9s.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas, I also think Oli meant an infinitely repeating repetend. However, his calculation started
Out with only five digits, and increased to seven after the 100 x multiplication. The multiplication should have only shifted the decimal place to the right by two places, leaving the number of significant digits unchanged. The problem can be seen in the subtraction:

Oli: 99.99999... - 0.99999... = 99. ?


We could approach this using an infinite series, as you suggested. However, a much easier way to handle this one is to see what is actually repeating. 0.99999999…. to infinity does not appear as true rational number. However, it can be easily factored as 9 x 0.11111111….
Then, 0.11111111.. can be expressed as 1/9 so it is rational. Then we only have
to operate on the 0.11111111.. x 100 = 11.111111… Subtracting out the repetend leaves 11 exactly.
But, 11/99 still equals 0.11111111….proving that mathematics is the only exact science, providing we follow the rules!
My point is: There is no paradox here, just arithmetic!

[Thomas Knierim]

schrodinger: The multiplication should have only shifted the decimal place to the right by two places, leaving the number of significant digits unchanged.

Isn't the number of significant digits irrelevant here? The arithmetic operation is performed with 0.999..., i.e. with the repetend (thank you, I learnt a new English word).

schrodinger: 0.99999999…. to infinity does not appear as true rational number.

You are right, it doesn't appear like a valid rational number. It is -by appearance- a valid real number, however, and that's why we are allowed to perform the arithmetic operations as we did. If the proof is correct, which I think it is, then 0.999... = 1, which means 0.999... is just an odd way of writing 1; a quirk of the decimal system so to speak.

schrodinger: Then, 0.11111111.. can be expressed as 1/9 so it is rational.

Right, but this immediately leads to another way of proving the same thing:

1/9 = 0.111... | *9
9/9 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

Again, I think the arithmetic is correct; it just doesn't prove what Oli wanted to prove, namely that the infinitesimal is nothing, or that nothing is everything.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas: Isn't the number of significant digits irrelevant here?

Well, not if we are dealing with the repetend in truncated format.

Thomas: a quirk of the decimal system so to speak.

This I agree with! It would be entirely possible to invent a new number
system with a nine base, where this repetend would vanish and it would become a an integer. However, we are stuck with the decimal system and all its quirks.

Right, but this immediately leads to another way of proving the same thing:

1/9 = 0.111... | *9
9/9 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

Since the nine was created as a factor of the repetend, it should only act on the repetend. It should not be used to multiply the fraction 1/9. That leads to the meaningless 1.
By waiting until the expression is reduced back to a repetend again, and
then multiplying by nine, we get back to the real value of (x) which is
0.9999....to infinity.
It is similar to working with a differential in that the expression has to be reduced to its simplest form before the differential can have its effect, otherwise the result is meaningless.

Thomas: it just doesn't prove what Oli wanted to prove, namely that the infinitesimal is nothing, or that nothing is everything.

I agree with you on this point. There is no deep philosophical message hidden in the bowels of a repeating decimal fraction. It is just arithmetic, but it can be very interesting. Thanks.

[Smurf]

OK then, listen to this one


This argues that everything is nothing

right

first we must define perfection to be flawless, this involves it to be infinitely flawless and this must then make it constitue of everything, so everything makes up perfection

Then the connection is simple:

What is more perfect than perfect?

Nothing

Nothing is perfect,

Perfectis everything

[schrodinger]

Smurf:

What is more perfect than perfect?

Nothing

Nothing is perfect,

That's fine, as long as we are not talking about money!! :lol:

[Smurf]

huh? You're saying that money is perfect?


anyway,

Everything makes up perfection and nothing is perfect so everything is nothing

taa daa! :P

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Everything makes up perfection and nothing is perfect so everything is nothing"

How can you tell when you reached perfection? And is it really possible to reach perfection? For perfection is nothing but ideas that are arranged in head, some times randomly and sometimes not B)

[Smurf]

well exactly!

everything is a concept, nothing is a concept, perfection is a concept... :P

[buzzlightyear1982]

"everything is a concept, nothing is a concept, perfection is a concept... "

I'm confussed...how do you come to the conclusion that a concept is nothing? A concept is a point of view observed and arranged to make an idea. An idea of how something should be or someone should act B)

[Smurf]

well we have this idea of nothing it is only a concept
same with infinity, we aren't immortal so we can never know if it exists, it is just a concept

anyway, a concept isn't physical, perhaps a concept is just a concept...

remember we can never be 100% sure about anything

[sahyo]

A concept is a point of view observed and arranged to make an idea.



schizophrenia?

;)

[sahyo]

smurf

concepting a concept?

:P
;)

[Smurf]

:D :mellow:

[Chimera]

Summed up, all energy in the universe equals to zero.

Zero is Nothing.

Nothing lasts forever.

So, Nothing lasts on its own, in, by and for itself, forever.

We know of that. That´s Everything we know.

Don´t you just love it? The only thing?

[sonrisa]

luvvit!

:D

[Smurf]

Summed up, all energy in the universe equals to zero.

Zero is Nothing.

Nothing lasts forever.

So, Nothing lasts on its own, in, by and for itself, forever.

We know of that. That´s Everything we know.

Don´t you just love it? The only thing?

well true,

so right now we are in fact existing and not existing at the same time :thumbsup:

[sonrisa]

yep....nope

or something like that

:tao:

[locomotive]

"Summed up, all energy in the universe equals to zero.

Zero is Nothing."

heh thats such bullshit.

[Smurf]

Oooh are you another sceptic? :unsure:

[buzzlightyear1982]

Don't bash the sceptics...without them there wouldn't be any reason to care B)

[Smurf]

Ahh, I wasn't bashing Locomotive. I love having sceptics, for without sceptics then there is nothing to test theories B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

Exactly... :thumbsup:

[Smurf]

Everything also includes compassion, awe-inspiring goodness and Cheezles :P

But by just saying it is not valid without an argument is not sound Psyche, you should know that

Perfection isn't the wonderful paradise that we all think it to be perfection is just flawless everything.

per·fect Audio pronunciation of "perfect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrfkt)
adj.

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

:P being complete the ultimate perfection would be everything, which then compliments my argument above

[Oli]

Perfection is something completely flawless to your point of view, it may not necessarily be universal. To some perfection is wholeness and completion, to others perfection is nothingness and to be free from everything (opposite to wholeness and completion; being empty of the mind).

But in another way this can also mean wholeness; with a free mind some may say it is empty of thought and consists of 'nothing'. Or that it is whole and 'perfect', as it can know all. Therefore they can mean the same thing, so perfection is both everything and nothing.

I don't think i'm explaining this very well.. <_<

[Smurf]

could someone other than smurf please explain the above statement to me ^^^^^ perfection isn't flawless everything

You haven't given any evidence to support your view, whereas I have given dictionary definitions and a wider research into the above concepts. It is you, Psyche, who is giving ludicrous arguments. Then what, according to you, is perfection?

I would ask you to at least consider our argument, which is what you are not doing; which is also what I had hoped you would do, seeing as I before had though you as a nice enough, open-minded person. Seems not to be the case.

so you have an absolute handle on what WE ALL THINK and can use it as a valid/sound argument

It was just a figure of speech, and could you please stop editing or deleting your posts, it is getting very annoying and disrupts the flow of the discussion.

[sahyo]

AND A FIGURE OF SPEECH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT

which is why it is not an insult but a statement of fact that it is LUDICROUS as a philosophical argument


what post did you read which suggested "an insult", psyche?

[sahyo]

.........................>






........................./\






smurf explaining is ok
though you-phyche-desiring-demanding

"A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT"






.........................\/






..........................<

[Smurf]

I would say that Philosophy is explaining as well
one has to explain his/her argument/theory to the others do they not?
If so then I was merely explaining my theory to you ...

[sahyo]

maybe psyche relax ?

[sahyo]

i have to catch them quickly or those particular ideas will disappear -psyche



what? catching what?

[David Quinn]

Thomas wrote:

My objection is that fatalism doesn't follow from determinism. For fatalism to be true, you require causally closed spacetime, ore respectively a causally closed spacetime subset. This means you need a spacetime subset that contains all events which will cause the future events in the same subset. No outside causes are allowed. Otherwise the observed spactime set is causally incomplete with regard to the future and thus cannot be said to be predetermined.
I'm not following your argument. It really doesn't matter if a system is open or closed (and indeed, no system is ever truly closed), a future event will always be a product of its causes. Thus, a future event can always be said to be predetermined by its causes.


It is easy to think of examples of causally closed systems. For example, billiard ball events on a billiard table are causally closed. However, casually closed abstractions are naive, because they disregard external conditions, for example the manufacturing process of the billiard ball which may have introduced slight irrregularities into its surface. You will find that causal chains stretch out far into the world and into the universe very quickly.
That's right. Causal closure will always be an impossibility. It can never occur.


Therefore, fatalism cannot be concluded from determinism alone. You also need causal closure as a second premise. Both determinism and causal closure are questionable.
You don't explain how an open system is unable to produce fully-determined events. Nor do you explain why determinism is questionable.

-

[David Quinn]

Winfried wrote:

First of all, I am a big fan of the chaos theory, which quite basically states that "it just happens", and does so randomly. It could've happend different and in fact, if you look at the quantum theory (didn't study that one too deeply though), it does happen differently, but what we see happening is this one random thing.
This is wishful thinking. The systems described by chaos theory are always causal in nature. They might feature sudden unpredictable jumps from one state to another, but nonetheless causation is always at work.

-

[buzzlightyear1982]

"but nonetheless causation is always at work..."

This is wishful thinking...causation may always be at work but that doesn't mean that it is always the stronger force. If everything you do is underlined by causation, then the action of doing/thinking something is pointless B)

[David Quinn]

buzzlightyear1982 wrote:

"but nonetheless causation is always at work..."

This is wishful thinking...causation may always be at work but that doesn't mean that it is always the stronger force.
There is nothing else but causation. No other forces exist. Or to put it another way, whatever forces exist are entirely composed of causation.

If everything you do is underlined by causation, then the action of doing/thinking something is pointless
Not if you're caused to have a purpose.

For example, my purpose in life is to become perfectly wise. It is a purpose that Nature has caused in me, and one that I happily accept.

-

[David Quinn]

psyche wrote:

nature has caused this

there was not volition on your part
Yes, ultimately, it was Nature's doing.


is this causation unique to you or is it a universal causation that you are aware of for some reason where others are not
A universal causation, of course. The only reason why I am aware of it, and understand its nature, is simply because I made the effort to do so.

-

[vicente]

A universal causation, of course. The only reason why I am aware of it, and understand its nature, is simply because I made the effort to do so.

Whoa!!! What "cause"? Just because there are perceived effects does not mean there is a cause.

I agree that effort seems important, but only to arrive where effort is let go. Keep in mind however,...you cannot let go of effort,...effort simply must be let go,...then there may be awareness.

I wouldn't say that everything is nothing. Nothing is way beyond everything.

If all the positive everythings were added to all the negatiive everythings, the sum would be nothing. Thus the threshold of nothing is uncovered after effort is transcended.

As for "understanding nature". Nature does not exist beyond things. We "think" things are real because that is the nature of the dream.

When we dream, we think the dream is real. Then we get up, and realize it was just a dream. Then we go back to sleep the next night and believe the dream is real.

The average person sleeps through about 20-25 years. 8 hours per day times 60-75 years. But what if those other 16 hours are a dream also? Can you prove it's not? If you can't prove it's not, isn't it being dishonest to say you understand the nature of causation?

What if,...Stillness is not realized until the concept of cause dissolves.

Pretty hard to see the dream while one is dreaming.

Vicente

[schrodinger]

David Quinn wrote:
Not if you're caused to have a purpose.

That is mumbo jumbo double speak. Of course every event is caused by some combination of previous events. However, events seem to be predictable or deterministic, because that is the way we remember things. Our memory of events is much the same as an accountant’s ledger, it must always balance out. But to say that you are caused to have a purpose is to say that you are caused to have free will. Either free will is free or it is caused, it cannot be “caused to be free” that is semantic skull drudgery.
My dog just barfed on the driveway. His eating a dead bird caused this. The bird died because my neighbor sprayed insecticide. He did this because of a termite infestation on his property, which in turn was caused by a dead tree rotting. This is the way I remember things happening, and it is all cause and effect. However, my neighbor could have burned the tree, there would have been no termites, no insecticide, no dead bird and no barf in my driveway. And that is the other way I would have remembered things. Still all cause and effect, but different this time because my neighbor exercised his free will and burned the tree. A thinking being is not a billiard ball, bouncing around according to Newton’s laws of motion. We can, and do, change things as we please, but we cannot change the past! The past has already been determined, and it does indeed affect the future. It does not, however “cause” the future in an explicit way. The past has a necessary, but not sufficient effect to predetermine the future, it is an implicit effect. This makes all the difference in the world!

In regard to the "everything vs. nothing" debate:
I see these two tewrms as two statements of measurement, and they are measuring the exact same thing, which is to say, they are the exzact same thing.

[David Quinn]

schrodinger wrote:

DQ: Not if you're caused to have a purpose.

S: That is mumbo jumbo double speak. Of course every event is caused by some combination of previous events. However, events seem to be predictable or deterministic, because that is the way we remember things. Our memory of events is much the same as an accountant’s ledger, it must always balance out. But to say that you are caused to have a purpose is to say that you are caused to have free will. Either free will is free or it is caused, it cannot be “caused to be free” that is semantic skull drudgery.
The word "free" in this context simply means "not passive". Our wills are not free in any ultimate sense. We cannot simply will whatever we want. Our will is only "free" in the sense that our behaviour isn't directly triggered by the external world. The workings in our brains are able to nullify or deflect these external forces to some degree. Our behaviour is dictated as much by our memories , desires, moods, fears, goals, etc, as they are by what is happening in the world around us. Nevertheless, all these things are part of the infinitely complex web of cause and effect.

In a sense, we're no different to a sophisticated computer which is capable of performing a wide range of tasks. It is only through its causes that the computer can perform these tasks in the first place. And as computers become more sophisticated in the future, they will increasingly be able to exercise "choice" over what tasks to perform and how to go about them. But no matter how sophisticated and "free" they become, they will never be able to transcend cause and effect in any way, just as we can never transcend it.


My dog just barfed on the driveway. His eating a dead bird caused this. The bird died because my neighbor sprayed insecticide. He did this because of a termite infestation on his property, which in turn was caused by a dead tree rotting. This is the way I remember things happening, and it is all cause and effect. However, my neighbor could have burned the tree, there would have been no termites, no insecticide, no dead bird and no barf in my driveway. And that is the other way I would have remembered things. Still all cause and effect, but different this time because my neighbor exercised his free will and burned the tree.
That is what you like to imagine. However, whatever decision your neighbour makes is purely a product of his own causes. For example, he might have decided not to burn down the tree because he got burnt in an accident during his childhood and has since become fearful of fire. As a result, he might have "decided" that he would only burn down the tree as a last resort.

If you examine you own behaviour carefully, you will see that each of your actions and decisions is prompted by a combination of past memories, knowledge, desires, fears, concerns about social status, cultural conditioning, genetics, etc. No part of it is ever prompted without cause.


A thinking being is not a billiard ball, bouncing around according to Newton’s laws of motion. We can, and do, change things as we please, but we cannot change the past! The past has already been determined, and it does indeed affect the future. It does not, however “cause” the future in an explicit way. The past has a necessary, but not sufficient effect to predetermine the future, it is an implicit effect. This makes all the difference in the world!
I agree that we're not mere billiard balls mindlessly bounced around by the world. But neither are we magical creatures who can initiate actions out of thin air. Rather, we are sophisticated creatures with complex inner workings who can shape the future to some extent. And underpinning all this complexity is the endless process of causality, which stretches back forever.

-

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: A universal causation, of course. The only reason why I am aware of it, and understand its nature, is simply because I made the effort to do so.

V: Whoa!!! What "cause"? Just because there are perceived effects does not mean there is a cause.
Since it is logically impossible for a thing to be without causes, there is no question that all things have causes.

At the very least, a thing needs a Universe to arise in. It needs space and time to exist. It needs the existence of its constituent parts. It needs the rest of the Universe not to suddenly crush it out of existence. All these things count as causes.


The average person sleeps through about 20-25 years. 8 hours per day times 60-75 years. But what if those other 16 hours are a dream also? Can you prove it's not? If you can't prove it's not, isn't it being dishonest to say you understand the nature of causation?
As far as the issue of causation is concerned, it doesn't matter if wakeful life is a dream or not. A dream-object also depends on causes - e.g. the dreaming mind, dream space and dream time, its constituent dream parts, the existence of the rest of the dream, etc.

-

[vicente]

before and beyond

I'd be cautious with the word "before". Before implies time.

Quantum Cosmologists Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle, said that the concept of a beginning is meaningless, because time is an illusion. There was no BigBang, no singularity, because there is no time, just another direction of space.

From this Quantum Cosmological view, there actually is no creation, thus no creator,...because the word creation/creator implies a before and after, or time.

As the Bodhisattva's and Mahasattva's been saying that for a few thousand years,...reality is within Timelessness.

:)

[vicente]

Since it is logically impossible for a thing to be without causes, there is no question that all things have causes.

Yep,...Zero certainly upsets logic. The Aristotelian concept of One and Cause prevails in an ego-centered society because the deluded concepts of Oneness and Cause sustain ego.

Light is proof that no Cause, nor Oneness, exists.

The Mahasiddha's been pointing to that for thousands of years.

V

[vicente]

David Quinn,...very much enjoy you sharing here. Please don't take offense at the following observations.

I can see from your posts that you would like the Christian theist Kevin Solway, but how could you possibly compare his delusional belief-driven meanderings within the same section as Nietzsche? I'd have to assume you never really read Nietzsche.

Nietzsche, as I agree, said that Christianity has stunted the spiritual growth of the majority of Western society. To take that a step further, Nietzsche implied, and I agree, that no honest person could possibly gain even the slightest insight from Christianity or a belief in its God.

Is it not interesting that those Paths which seek enlightenment, like Buddhism, do not believe in God?

Is not God merely a synonym of hope?

Vicente
:)

[David Quinn]

Vincente,

I can see from your posts that you would like the Christian theist Kevin Solway, but how could you possibly compare his delusional belief-driven meanderings within the same section as Nietzsche? I'd have to assume you never really read Nietzsche.
I know Kevin Solway, but I've never heard him described as a Christian theist before. Most people think of him more as a Buddhist/atheist.

Nietzsche is a very misunderstood thinker, as Nietzsche himself knew he would be. I consider him to be a colleague of mine, as a fellow thinker of the Infinite. But most people mistakenly consider him to be a proto-postmodernist, as a kind of rougher version of their own mediocre selves.


Nietzsche, as I agree, said that Christianity has stunted the spiritual growth of the majority of Western society. To take that a step further, Nietzsche implied, and I agree, that no honest person could possibly gain even the slightest insight from Christianity or a belief in its God.

Is it not interesting that those Paths which seek enlightenment, like Buddhism, do not believe in God?

Is not God merely a synonym of hope?
I more or less agree with all that, and so I have no idea why you are bringing it up. It doesn't seem to have any connection to my posts.


DQ: Since it is logically impossible for a thing to be without causes, there is no question that all things have causes.

V: Yep,...Zero certainly upsets logic.
How so?

The Aristotelian concept of One and Cause prevails in an ego-centered society because the deluded concepts of Oneness and Cause sustain ego.
How so?

Light is proof that no Cause, nor Oneness, exists.
How so?

I thought this was a serious discussion board? You're going to have to do a lot better than that, Vincente.

-

[vicente]

I thought this was a serious discussion board? You're going to have to do a lot better than that

LOL,...I was pondering the same about you. How could a serious person include Kevin Solway in the same short list as Nietzsche?

Solway, as per his website that you linked, is not only a Christian and Abrahamic monotheist, but his own words show him to be a Christian apologist.

How so?

Ahhh!!! Don't read very well.

As I mentioned in an above,...the Quantum Cosmological view, says there actually is no creation, thus no creator,...because the word creation/creator implies a before and after, or time.

As hundreds of "actual" wise persons have suggested for thousands of years,...life is a dream. Not much different from the dream you believe is real each time you go to sleep at night. This life is a dream, just like the pain you feel getting hit with a rock in your dreams at night.

Stephen Hawking said "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge", while the famous Albert Einstein said "reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistant one."

In 1918 Planck stated, "As a man who has devoted his entire life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much, there is no matter as such."

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." —Muriel Rukeyser

Nobel Prize Physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."

Aristotelian logic?

St. Augustine, one of the Father's of the Christian meme, claimed that he came to Christ not through any Christian scriptures but by reading Plato. Plato believed in a ratio based reality. St. Thomas refers to Aristotle as not just any philosopher but with the emphatic article as ...'The Philosopher'... and then goes on to prove 'logically' the existence of God through Aristotelian logic.

Zero, as a number, made its debut in Western Culture, chiefly as a consequence of double-entry bookkeeping in the early days of the Renaissance, pretty near simultaneous with Arts use of the vanishing point in perspective painting. However, the clinging to a belief in "One", and its religious concepts of Oneness, causes and beginnings, held back any full blown evolution of superconscious proportions. Fortunately though, we did dump the zeroless Roman numerals for Arabic numerals, otherwise, we may be still back in the Dark Ages.

The Judeao-Christian-Islamic universe was constructed out of the Helenistic need for ratio, and rejected (in fact, still do) anything that doesn't fit inside that logic. Zero upsets egos logic. Thus they discard it, just as they discard the companions of Zero,...Causelessness, Nowness, Timelessness, Unconditionality and Love. Yet our understanding of Religion, Science, Art, and everything else, is directly proportional to our level of the understanding of Zero.

Nobel Laureate Max Planck once said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

Can the mystery be solved? Absolutely!!! It has been solved hundreds of times. Not through science, but through sapience.

Where Kevin Solway is into knowledge,...real persons of wisdom are into Gnowledge. Gnothi Seauton,...to Gnow Thyself, not to know thyself.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

'about' is illusion

[vicente]

If there is a person to be assigned the most important discovery in all of mathematics, finding of zero, that would be Brahmagupta. The Brahmasphutasiddhanta, written circa 628 AD, is the earliest known text to treat zero as a number in its own right.

Well, the pre-Maya Olmecs knew of zero, a thousand years before Brahmagupta.

so that means there is no matter as nothing is really solid it is really a dance of energy vibrating strings

No,...that just means that science, in their reductionist beliefs, have only got down to that level. Actually there is no "energy". Energy is a product of the illusion of separation from light. At the so-called speed of light all energy ceases.

Energy is simply the motion of separation looking to wake up, or return to the Stillness of light.

Until then, the people in the Valley of the Blind will continue to treat the one-eyed guy for his disease.

Vicente

[vicente]

'about' is illusion

Sheera's Sharings

:)

[sahyo]

vicente :)

[vicente]

can you give me some back up for this statement?

I lived in Palenque, Mexico for a year, where I studied the Maya and Zero. Archeologist claim that the Maya (which they definitely knew before the founding of modern Christianity), learned zero from the Olmecs.

The Maya not only knew zero as a number, but also understood the "spiritual value" of zero. In many ways, the Maya of Mesoamerica knew more of quantum cosmology than today's quantum cosmologists.

Personally, I thought the Naga of ancient Central Asia were historically the first to use zero. Even Siddhartha seemed aware of it,...for how else is one going to realize enlightenment without surrendering to zero.

Vicente
:)

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: I thought this was a serious discussion board? You're going to have to do a lot better than that

LOL,...I was pondering the same about you. How could a serious person include Kevin Solway in the same short list as Nietzsche?
He is a free thinker like Nietzcshe was, and he possesses a similar level of individuality and profundity, which is very rare in this world.


Solway, as per his website that you linked, is not only a Christian and Abrahamic monotheist, but his own words show him to be a Christian apologist.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. It seems to have no bearing on the Kevin Solway I know.


As I mentioned in an above,...the Quantum Cosmological view, says there actually is no creation, thus no creator,...because the word creation/creator implies a before and after, or time.
Agreed, although we don't need to know anything about quantum theory in order to know that there is no creator. Understanding the truth that all things have causes is more than enough.

The Buddha was able to understand the creationless nature of the world by studying causation. His ignorance of quantum theory wasn't a hindrance to him.


As hundreds of "actual" wise persons have suggested for thousands of years,...life is a dream. Not much different from the dream you believe is real each time you go to sleep at night. This life is a dream, just like the pain you feel getting hit with a rock in your dreams at night.
More accurately, wise people say that wakeful life is *like* a dream. There are too many differences between wakeful life and nightly dreams to say that the two are identical. However, it is true that everything we experience in wakeful life is illusory in nature, and thus it is "like" a dream in that sense.


Stephen Hawking said "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge", while the famous Albert Einstein said "reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistant one."
Well, to call Reality an "illusion" is to mangle terms and only serves to create confusion unnecessarily. A better way to put it is that all phenomena *within* Reality is an illusion, while Reality itself can't be confined by such a limited category. In truth, Reality is neither real nor illusory.


In 1918 Planck stated, "As a man who has devoted his entire life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much, there is no matter as such."
Again, we don't need to study science in order to know that there is no such thing as matter. Philosophic reasoning is more than adequate to the task.


"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." —Muriel Rukeyser
That is surely a limited story on Rukeyser's part.

The universe is made up of truths, as well as stories.


Nobel Prize Physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."
This, for example, is one of the truths of the universe.


St. Augustine, one of the Father's of the Christian meme, claimed that he came to Christ not through any Christian scriptures but by reading Plato. Plato believed in a ratio based reality. St. Thomas refers to Aristotle as not just any philosopher but with the emphatic article as ...'The Philosopher'... and then goes on to prove 'logically' the existence of God through Aristotelian logic.

Zero, as a number, made its debut in Western Culture, chiefly as a consequence of double-entry bookkeeping in the early days of the Renaissance, pretty near simultaneous with Arts use of the vanishing point in perspective painting. However, the clinging to a belief in "One", and its religious concepts of Oneness, causes and beginnings, held back any full blown evolution of superconscious proportions. Fortunately though, we did dump the zeroless Roman numerals for Arabic numerals, otherwise, we may be still back in the Dark Ages.

The Judeao-Christian-Islamic universe was constructed out of the Helenistic need for ratio, and rejected (in fact, still do) anything that doesn't fit inside that logic. Zero upsets egos logic. Thus they discard it, just as they discard the companions of Zero,...Causelessness, Nowness, Timelessness, Unconditionality and Love. Yet our understanding of Religion, Science, Art, and everything else, is directly proportional to our level of the understanding of Zero.
I have no idea why you are mentioning all this. You seem to be raving just for the sake of it.


Nobel Laureate Max Planck once said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

Can the mystery be solved? Absolutely!!! It has been solved hundreds of times. Not through science, but through sapience.
Or more accurately, through logically reasoning.

Do you claim to have solved the mystery, Vincente?


Where Kevin Solway is into knowledge,...real persons of wisdom are into Gnowledge. Gnothi Seauton,...to Gnow Thyself, not to know thyself.
Again, your characterization of Kevin Solway is very wide of the mark, so much so that I am wondering whether you are just a troll who is getting some sort of perverted pleasure in playing with me.

At least I hope that's what you're doing.

In any case, what is the point of introducing a word like "gnow" without defining what it means? What are you trying to acheive by doing this?

-

[vicente]

He is a free thinker like Nietzcshe was, and he possesses a similar level of individuality and profu

I surely didn't see that from the several passages I read on his website, specifically under Christianity and God.

Understanding the truth that all things have causes is more than enough.

The Buddha was able to understand the creationless nature of the world by studying causation. His ignorance of quantum theory wasn't a hindrance to him.

IMO as long as you think there is a Cause, you will remain attached to this illusion of perceived reality.

From my observations, which happen to be the point of view of light, there is no causation,...perceived reality merely effects its motion upon the fulcrum of light. Light is not the Cause, for there is no Cause,...only an Effect.

Buddha's understanding was simply not chained to beliefs.

Jim Walker, in his 'The Problems with Beliefs', mentions that as "Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a "god" that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Issac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory, however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time and formulated his famous theory of General relativity, yet his own beliefs could not except pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics".

However, it is true that everything we experience in wakeful life is illusory in nature, and thus it is "like" a dream in that sense.

I disagree with that speculation. Direct experience is not illusory in nature. Few however have direct experiences. For most, they experience the world that surrounded them, not the world that surrounds them.

A better way to put it is that all phenomena *within* Reality is an illusion, while Reality itself can't be confined by such a limited category. In truth, Reality is neither real nor illusory.

That statement suggests that you never had a direct experience.

I'd suggest the Supermarket Activity.

There are Transformational Triggers which can temporarily put our personality (ego) on hold,...thus allowing the us we really are to be undivided. In other words, expose the Heart of our essence.

Where religion and beliefs always steps between us and our experiences, Transformational Triggers can precipitate for us an uncovering of tremendums, that is, direct ecstatic, sapiential experiences. These activities bring pause to ego, beliefs and attachment to the past, and thus, being free of preconceived references, engage us, if just for a "taste", in the Eternal Now,...thus transcending thinking and artificial feeling.

For me, the Supermarket Activity is one of my favorites. A key to successful Transformational Triggering however, is don't over analyzed,...just do it.

Supermarket Activity:

Enter a Supermarket for one hour,...not a WalMart or Sears, but a market like America's Safeway, Albertsons, Krogers, Acme, etc. In the store, you touch nothing, not a cart, not a basket,...read nothing, talk to no one. If someone talks to you, touches you, or you touch something,...immediately pick up an item, go to the check-out, pay for it and leave. Then try again later.

Some suggestions: don't wear a watch, for someone may ask you the time,...unfamilar stores seem to be better, so your friends won't say Hi,...if you do have to suspend the task, you don't have to pick up something expensive.

Also,...read the JBC intro. For example "Not jumping to conclusions turns out to be a pretty good habit....Jump meaning to form a conclusion prematurely before all the data is in.
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

The universe is made up of truths, as well as stories.

Sure, relative truths,...not real truths.

Buddha Siddhartha reportedly said, even attachment to the universe as a whole, is still ego attachment.

I have no idea why you are mentioning all this. You seem to be raving just for the sake of it.

You inquired about Aristotelian logic and zero. From now on I'll restrain from attempting to respond seriously to your querries.

In any case, what is the point of introducing a word like "gnow" without defining what it means?

There is a HUGE difference between know and gnow.

knowledge (from science): 1. to perceive directly through the senses; comprehend through the intellect; psyche. 2. to experience through the intellect or memory, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have a practical understanding of, as through sensory experience; know how to cook. 4. to comprehend noologically; through thought/intellect.

gnowledge (from sapience): 1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness; comprehend through the heart of essence; thymos. 2. to experience without predisposition, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love. 4. to comprehend ontosophically; through wisdom/gnosis. The gnowing that Siddhartha Gautama implied when he purportedly said "be a lamp unto yourself". Or the gnowledge of the phrase at the Temple of Delphi,...Gnothi Seauton.

At Delphi, according to an expert in Greek history, David Karnos, when they would say Mind, thy point to the chest and say Thymos,...not to the head where psyche was located.

To those who had an understanding of zero, like the Naga, Egyptians or Mesoamerican Maya, the brain was immediated discarded at death, yet the butterfly shaped thymus was treasured. Of course, todays Priests of Science discard the thymus, and hail the brain.

In their reductionist belief system, they think the brain is the source of reality, as if a radio was the source of music.

Vicente
:)

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: [Kevin Solway] is a free thinker like Nietzcshe was, and he possesses a similar level of individuality and profundity, which is very rare in this world.

V: I surely didn't see that from the several passages I read on his website, specifically under Christianity and God.
You mean this one:

Christianity is a monster madcap cult, made up of desperately selfish people. Their "compassion" is a crudely disguised form of self-love, and their "peace" involves an intense hatred of whatever threatens it.

Or perhaps you mean this one:

Just as a spider has no chance of ever fathoming the profound philosophic meaning of the cross, nor does a Christian have the slightest hope. Such creatures are not even fit to be taught about spirituality, let alone practice it! They take every priceless gem of religious teaching and totally distort it to suit their own egos.

Or maybe this one:

Now what is this Christian God but the most comical being that ever lived! He sets the earth in motion, then threatens it with a hell! Eternal punishment! He says "unless you make your life as profitable and enjoyable as you possibly can, I'll seize upon your person, and torture you to death in the most dreadful manner."

This is comical. One does not need to force people to be happy under threat of a loaded pistol!

Or this one:

Truth, or understanding Nature, does not interest the Christian in the slightest degree. Interest in truth makes one vulnerable to change, and change is painful. "But I am too weak" says the Christian, with relief, and recoils into the safety of belief. If these so-called Christians would only be honest, and say "Yes, I do it purely for my own well-being," then I would think there is at least some hope for them. Instead they say "I do it for others, out of my love of God." Nothing could be more loathsome. It is one thing to get fat merely from over-eating; but to get pallid-fat, on cakes and confections - this is horrible.

The priest is a total abomination. He does his utmost to make sure that nobody has the gall to venture out, and try to understand. He does all in his power to make of us content with mere belief. He shakes with terror at the thought that a person may be so presumptuous as to wish to know the Truth for themselves. He would much prefer us to remain content and harmless, like a herd of cows. And just as a physician bungles a case to make himself indispensable, so does the priest demoralize men, to make himself indispensable. At his very best he dispenses advice that is superficially empowering, but is crippling in the long-run.

Taken from Poison for the Heart (http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html#ch).


DQ: Understanding the truth that all things have causes is more than enough.

The Buddha was able to understand the creationless nature of the world by studying causation.
His ignorance of quantum theory wasn't a hindrance to him.

V: IMO as long as you think there is a Cause, you will remain attached to this illusion of perceived reality.
I agree that there isn't 'a' Cause. There is no question that Nature stretches back forever.

On the other hand, perceived reality is all there is.

Do you believe in some kind of otherworldly reality, Vincente?


From my observations, which happen to be the point of view of light, there is no causation,...perceived reality merely effects its motion upon the fulcrum of light. Light is not the Cause, for there is no Cause,...only an Effect.
On my planet, light is caused by causal conditions, the same as anything else. For example, the light from the sun comes from nuclear energy, gravity, hydrogen atoms, etc.

In turn, light is constantly producing effects. For example, light enables humans to see things and perform all sorts of activities that would otherwise be impossible in the dark.


Buddha's understanding was simply not chained to beliefs.
True. But he did have knowledge. For example, he had knowledge of the emptiness of all things, karmic consequences, and the path to enlightenment. He also had a deep abiding knowledge of cause and effect.


Jim Walker, in his 'The Problems with Beliefs', mentions that as "Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a "god" that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Issac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory, however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time and formulated his famous theory of General relativity, yet his own beliefs could not except pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics".
That is science, not philosophy, and therefore irrelevent in the context of this discussion . A good philosopher is able to unearth timeless knowledge which cannot be overturned by any new developments in the future. This is what makes genuine philosophic knowledge so special. On the one hand, it is entirely logical in nature, and yet, on the other, it is wholly beyond the powers of science, and indeed time itself, to undermine.

An example is the knowledge that all things lack inherent existence.


DQ: A better way to put it is that all phenomena *within* Reality is an illusion, while Reality itself can't be confined by such a limited category. In truth, Reality is neither real nor illusory.

V: That statement suggests that you never had a direct experience.
I'm always having direct experiences, Vincente.


I'd suggest the Supermarket Activity.

There are Transformational Triggers which can temporarily put our personality (ego) on hold,...thus allowing the us we really are to be undivided. In other words, expose the Heart of our essence.

Where religion and beliefs always steps between us and our experiences, Transformational Triggers can precipitate for us an uncovering of tremendums, that is, direct ecstatic, sapiential experiences. These activities bring pause to ego, beliefs and attachment to the past, and thus, being free of preconceived references, engage us, if just for a "taste", in the Eternal Now,...thus transcending thinking and artificial feeling.

For me, the Supermarket Activity is one of my favorites. A key to successful Transformational Triggering however, is don't over analyzed,...just do it.
You're essentially talking about the inducing of altered states of consciousness here. By putting a tempory halt to one's habitual worries and fears, the mind is free to open itself up to new forms of perception, and even rekindle old perceptions from childhood. And it doesn't have to be a supermarket which triggers such an event. It can be drugs, sudden grief, near-death experiences, listening to music, practicing meditation, etc. All these things have the capacity to put a halt to one's normal thought-processes and stimulate something new in the mind.

Sometimes, these new perceptions can be mystical in nature and impart some genuine insight into the nature of Reality. At other times, they are more blissful and aesthetic in nature. Sometimes, they can even be hellish.

While these are interesting experiences to have, and the process of inducing altered states is an important phase of one's development, it is still a long way short of enlightenment. It is important not to stagnate in this area, like so many people do. If you want the ultimate prize in life, you have to move on.

Enlightenment can only arise when one pierces the core delusion of inherent existence (which is sometimes called "maya") and eliminates all false thinking from the mind. It is a lofty achievment that only occurs after a long rational process. The altered states that you are talking about can strike anyone at anytime, and if the person who experiences them still has delusions in his mind, and if he still spellbound by maya, then he will invariably misinterpret his experiences. Whatever insight he gains into the nature of Reality will be distorted at best.

In my experience, there is very little correlation between altered states and wisdom. I can't count the number of people I have met who are experienced explorers of altered states and yet are still extremely ignorant about the nature of Reality - despite the fact that they believed themselves to be enlightened and wise!


DQ: The universe is made up of truths, as well as stories.

V: Sure, relative truths,...not real truths.
Is that right? Is this relatively true, or really true?

What is the difference between a relative truth and a real truth?


Buddha Siddhartha reportedly said, even attachment to the universe as a whole, is still ego attachment.
Attachment to anything at all, even to truth and wisdom, is ego attachment. Even your desire to transcend the "illusion of perceived reality" is ego attachment.

However, some attachments are better than others. For example, it is better to be attached to truth than, say, to raping little babies.

Indeed, the path to enlightenment essentially consists of becoming intensely attached to truth, using that attachment to eliminate every other attachment, and then, as a final act, eliminating the attachment to truth itself.


gnowledge (from sapience): 1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness; comprehend through the heart of essence; thymos. 2. to experience without predisposition, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love. 4. to comprehend ontosophically; through wisdom/gnosis. The gnowing that Siddhartha Gautama implied when he purportedly said "be a lamp unto yourself". Or the gnowledge of the phrase at the Temple of Delphi,...Gnothi Seauton.
Ah, those altered states again. I can see you' re very attached to them.

Let me ask you this: How have you been able to determine that your gnostic experiences are not hallucinatory in nature?

-

[vicente]

i wouldn't gnow or know i don't think of gnowledge as something to be measured

Gnowledge can be measured by the level of non-attachment to knowledge.

And yes, I met Babiji,...during my first connected breathing experience at the International Center for Rebirthing. I spent 3 weeks there.

Let me ask you this: How have you been able to determine that your gnostic experiences are not hallucinatory in nature?

Truth can be determined. As my life has had little interest in personal, relative, separate, belief-driven truth, I define truth as that which cannot be shown to be false. There are several statements that I have not been able to prove as false, such as, there is no present/Now/or instant in time. Thus, I use those observations, that I haven't been able to prove as false, in determining how "direct" my experiences are.

As René Descartes said, "all that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once".

Although Descartes obviously did not grasp the oxymoron "present time", I have pondered that if he had access to a microscopic or discrete point of view, we Westerners may have already entered an Era of Peace, instead of lingering in an Era of Religion and Terrorism.

Relative truth can always be deduced to concepts,....whereas absolute truth is non-conceptual. Relative truth is an invention, connected somehow to the illusion of object-ivity. Absolute truth is not something discovered, but uncovered.

As Dr. Helen Schucman put it, "The task is not to seek for love, but to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it".

Vicente
:)

[...]

[just for you]


..i'm going to try to verbalize a thought-experiment, so let's see where this ends:

I wanted to know what i'd see if i moved beyond the bounderies of the physical universe. First i had to establish what the physical universe actually is. Going with the BigBang-theory i conluded that all what we perceive is energy but that space itself cannot be included as part of the singularity.

Space itself is just that, space. It is nothing, it has no qualities or attributes, it does nothing and and serves no other purpose than to be space. The singularity prior to the BigBang existed therefore in this nothingness and expanded in it, and as it expanded incorporates space making it subject to the laws of physics.

Space has now become a something. From this point on i'll refer to true nothingness as the Void. An expanding universe has an edge, similar to blowing-up a balloon. We exist inside it as it expands into the Void, and now it becomes interesting.

The concept of Voidance is hard to grasp. It means true nothingness; no energy, no heat, no matter, no laws of physics, just infinite nothingness. So what if i could pierce through the edge of the universe and move into this nothingness, what would i see if i looked back upon the universe?

First i thought i'd be looking at the singularity prior to the BigBang, and basically see alot of other singularities just like the night's sky. But if i'm able to see, it means light is present and in the Void there's nothing, not even light. So, the edge of the physical universe is probably thinner than balloon, and if you pierce through a balloon: poof, it's gone.

Looking back upon the universe from the POV of the Void, nothing is there, and nothing ever happened. To the Void, there hasn't been a singularity or BigBang. There is no universe expanding because to something that is infinit size is irrelevant, it just isn't there.

We, as human beings, carry around with us the same Void. An emptiness simulated by the brain wherein consciousness expands holding similar limitless possibilities as our universe. However, equal to our universe, nothing is really happening here, never has and never will.

Being a thought-experiment, it holds little relevance to this current reality, but as we continue to be pre-occupied with things like war, money, power, suffering, injustice, greed and pollution, we all could use a reminder like this: nothing to see here folks, just move on 'coz nothing ever happened.

..it's not as elegant as i thought it would be, which is no suprise, but post it anyway, just for your amusement (-;

[sonrisa]

yo dots.... :thumbsup:

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: Let me ask you this: How have you been able to determine that your gnostic experiences are not hallucinatory in nature?

V: Truth can be determined. As my life has had little interest in personal, relative, separate, belief-driven truth, I define truth as that which cannot be shown to be false. There are several statements that I have not been able to prove as false, such as, there is no present/Now/or instant in time. Thus, I use those observations, that I haven't been able to prove as false, in determining how "direct" my experiences are.
In your other words, you are using logic to determine what is true. That's good. You are raising logic to the highest level and using it to judge the validity of your "gnowledge", along with everything else. My respect for you has risen a notch or two.

Now, can you tell us the reasoning behind your conclusion that there is no present time? For example, how do you explain our ability to perceive things in each moment, if there is no present time?


Relative truth can always be deduced to concepts,....whereas absolute truth is non-conceptual. Relative truth is an invention, connected somehow to the illusion of object-ivity. Absolute truth is not something discovered, but uncovered.
Aren't you, in giving us this explanation, using concepts throughout? Isn't your conclusion about absolute truth here wholly dependent upon concepts?

Plainly, it is.

So does this mean that what you are saying above is merely "relatively true", or "absolutely true"?

And if it is just relatively true, why should we give it any attention?

-

[vicente]

i doubt if you met the babaji i am referring to

They're all suppose to be the same Babiji. The one that hung out with Len Orr, is suppose to be same as the one in the Biography of a Yogi.

This is the one I met:
http://www.babaji.net/community-photos.htm

V
:)

[vicente]

Now, can you tell us the reasoning behind your conclusion that there is no present time? For example, how do you explain our ability to perceive things in each moment, if there is no present time?

I had a quite nice, indepth post typed, but it got lost while sending. I'm not going to attempt to rewrite it, but will say, I've been in the present, and no time exists there. What the cerebral consciousness "knows" as the present is a perceived present, but the perceived present is in the past. All time on this side of light is in the past. Even the moniter you are reading from in this preceived present is in the past. Objects are separate because we perceive them in the past.

What about the future? There is no future,..it's a delusion, like the past.

To experience the present, one must enter timelessness. However, no body/mass, cerebral intellect, emotion, or ego can enter timelessness. Those things are of time, thus the past, and are illusory.

Effort is needed to get to the threshold of timelessness, but effort cannot gain access to that experience,...nor can effortlessness. We cannot stop effort or employ effortlessness. The effort and effortlessness simply ceases. Direct experience occurs beyond beliefs.

Is there a so called place where timelessness exists,...certainly, so to say,...at what we call the speed of light. At the so called speed of light, time ceases, and thus we enter the present.

Therein lies the the whole riddle. To reach Stillness we must travel 186K MPS. To reach the Present, we must travel 186K MPS. To arrive at the Now, we must travel 186K MPS.

Lets reverse that. Lets say you are in the present and want to get here, back to the illusion. You must travel 186K MPS slower than the Stillness of Light. Anything slower than the Stillness, Timelessness of Light is in the past.

The idea that light travels is another cerebral-centric delusion. Light has no need to travel any distance in any time. Projected light is not real light,...it's simulated light. Duality is a projection,...real light is Still in the projector.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

the babaji i refer to had the ability to revive the dead which is also described in the autobiography of a yogi

I would say that all authentic Mahasiddhas can revive the dead. I have a chime of a defleshed fish in my office to remind me of that everyday.

Remember Tilopa?

"The first meeting of Naropa with Tilopa occurred in the courtyard of a Buddhist monastery. The cynic Sage, nearly naked, was seated on the ground eating fish. As the meal went on, he put down the fish’s backbones beside him. However, in order not to defile his cast purity, Naropa was on the point of passing by at some little distance from the eater, when a monk started to reproach Tilopa for parading his lack of compassion for the animals, that is, killing and eating the fish, in the very premises of a Buddhist Monastery; and ordered him to leave at once.

Tilopa did not even condescend to answer. He muttered some words, snapped his fingers and the fish bones were again covered with flesh. The fishes then moved as if living and swam away through the air as if it was water. No vestige remained of the cruel meal on the ground. "

http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm

As for masters, there are many levels of masters. Some so-called masters simply tapped into their higher emotional body. EJ Gold explained:

"In the presence of someone who is able to produce real emotion, we experience feelings - perhaps for the first time. Very often, someone who has awakened the higher Emotional Body and who has learned to radiate emotions becomes a celebrity-guru, and people gather like cattle to bathe in the higher emotions. These higher emotions are often mistaken for some mysterious cosmic force or interpreted in some pseudo-religious way, but really they are just emotions.
What a pity that human beings are so unaccustomed to emotion that they feel compelled to submissively huddle together in the warmth of the emotional radiation of someone just as mechanical as they are, but who happened to have activated, by accident, the higher Emotional Body"

My favorite book growing up was Alexandria David-Neels 'Magic and Mystery in Tibet'. It was in the early 70's when I first read it, and had profound effect on me. In it are several techniques for raising the dead. Although I don't claim to be a master, I wouldn't say I couldn't raise the dead.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

you believe that the babaji you met was a mahasiddhi who can raise from the dead but requires donations through paypal


The Babiji I met is no longer around,...don't know who is asking for money through paypal, but it isn't Babiji.

I met a master who never asked for money, but people would buy him Rolls Royces, hundreds of them. LOL

I'll tell you this though, if you have a predisposition that masters can never ask for money, then you will never meet a master who doesn't ask you for money.

Have you never read Tilopa's Shoe?

V
:)

[schrodinger]

Vicente: In it are several techniques for raising the dead. Although I don't claim to be a master, I wouldn't say I couldn't raise the dead.

I think it is kind of your care takers to let you have internet access. :lol:

[David Quinn]

Schrodinger wrote:

Vicente: In it are several techniques for raising the dead. Although I don't claim to be a master, I wouldn't say I couldn't raise the dead.

Schrodinger: I think it is kind of your care takers to let you have internet access.
Yes, that is seriously nutty, I must say. For a guy in his 50's to claim such a thing is a worry, let alone one who thinks he's enlightened.

Thomas, the overall quality of your posters here is incredibly low. How did you let it reach such a state?

-

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: Now, can you tell us the reasoning behind your conclusion that there is no present time? For example, how do you explain our ability to perceive things in each moment, if there is no present time?

V: I had a quite nice, indepth post typed, but it got lost while sending. I'm not going to attempt to rewrite it, but will say, I've been in the present, and no time exists there. What the cerebral consciousness "knows" as the present is a perceived present, but the perceived present is in the past. All time on this side of light is in the past. Even the moniter you are reading from in this preceived present is in the past. Objects are separate because we perceive them in the past.
It depends on how you look at it. In one sense, the monitor I perceive in each moment is in the past because of the time it takes for the light to bounce off the monitor and reach my eyes, and also the time it takes for my nervous system to process this event. But nonetheless, I am still experiencing the monitor in the present. The present is thus very real. If it wasn't for the present, I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

The past, present and future is just as real as anything else is. They are no less real than your own life and consciousness, and no less real than the state of timelessness that you imagine you enter on occasion.

In other words, you can't call one set of perceived experiences a "delusion", while maintaining that another set of perceived experiences are real, not without being arbitrary and inconsistent.


To experience the present, one must enter timelessness. However, no body/mass, cerebral intellect, emotion, or ego can enter timelessness. Those things are of time, thus the past, and are illusory.
This state of timelessness is also a perceived reality, is it not? Otherwise, how would you even know that you experience it? So doesn't this mean that it is also part of the "illusion of perceived reality" and should be dismissed as well?

-

[vicente]

Yes, that is seriously nutty, I must say. For a guy in his 50's to claim such a thing is a worry, let alone one who thinks he's enlightened.

Actually your response is arrogant. You never read Magic and Mystery in Tibet, never read me say I was enlightened, etc. Just because you don't think you can raise the dead, nor heard of it on television, does not make it not true that it can be done.

The "quality that is low"is those here not interested in the BigView, or what I call Full Spectrum Consciousness. You probably only see 7 colors in the rainbow. Well, your ancestors only saw 3, so one could say that's an improvement. But it's still object-ive, sciential thinking.

But nonetheless, I am still experiencing the monitor in the present. The present is thus very real. If it wasn't for the present, I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

I understand you want to believe you are viwing your monitor in the present,...that belief makes your imagined situation more palatable. The irrefutable, absolute fact is however, that there is no present in time. You can imagine refuting it all you wish, but that is not going to put the present in time, no more that if you attempted to put your conditions into the Unconditional and hoped that the Unconditional will remain Unconditional.

Timelessness is not a perceived reality, but the fulcrum upon which time effects its motion. As Buddha Siddhartha stayed some 20 years following his enlightenment, it appears to be posible to walk, so to say, in both realities simultaneously. That is to say, be in the dream of conceptual awareness, and in the not-dream of non-conceptual reality.

If you wish to play Joe Scientist, why not do your "super, I'm so miserable among these lowly posters, analysis", and dissect Tilopa's Mahamudra for us low life BigViewers.

http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm

Vicente
:)

[...]

..when Buddha sat under his tree for 6 years and ate birdshit to stay alive, what was the realisation that made him get up and mingle with the common folk again? Could it have been: "I am what i desire"? As always others ran with it and made it into something else, perverts!

:lol:

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: Yes, that is seriously nutty, I must say. For a guy in his 50's to claim such a thing is a worry, let alone one who thinks he's enlightened.

V: Actually your response is arrogant.

Well, we're all arrogant. What matters is whether or not we are clear-sighted and undelusional.


You never read Magic and Mystery in Tibet, never read me say I was enlightened, etc. Just because you don't think you can raise the dead, nor heard of it on television, does not make it not true that it can be done.

I promise you, if there was a genuinely documented instance of a person being raised from the dead, it would make headline news right around the world.

Tell me have you ever raised the dead yourself, or seen someone else do it? Or does this all come from a book you've read?

As for whether you think you are enlightened, you don't need to say it. It is implicit in the way that you like to pontificate about the nature of Reality and what it means to be enlightened. Admittedly, it is a poor quality discourse that you give, but nonetheless you make it evident that you secretly believe you know what you are talking about.


The "quality that is low"is those here not interested in the BigView, or what I call Full Spectrum Consciousness. You probably only see 7 colors in the rainbow. Well, your ancestors only saw 3, so one could say that's an improvement. But it's still object-ive, sciential thinking.

Scientists would laugh at such a characterization of me. Thomas Knierim is a practitioner of objective- sciential thinking, but he and I are poles apart. If you wish to categorize me, I am a non-scientific, non-mystical, logical thinker of the Infinite.


DQ: But nonetheless, I am still experiencing the monitor in the present. The present is thus very real. If it wasn't for the present, I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

V: I understand you want to believe you are viwing your monitor in the present,...that belief makes your imagined situation more palatable.

You're not seeing my point. The *direct experience* of the monitor that I have in each moment is in the present, by definition. The monitor itself might be in the past, but the actual experience that I have of it in each moment is in the present.

Things only exist by definition. If we define the present to be that moment in time in which we directly experience the world, then the present most certainly exists.


The irrefutable, absolute fact is however, that there is no present in time. You can imagine refuting it all you wish, but that is not going to put the present in time, no more that if you attempted to put your conditions into the Unconditional and hoped that the Unconditional will remain Unconditional.

You haven't yet explained why there can be no present. You're only making unfounded assertions, which isn't good enough.

Moreover, one has to be careful of the mind's propensity to create dualistic realms and believe them to be real. In truth, there is no such realm called the "Unconditional", which is seperate from the rest of existence - just as there is no such thing as a seperate state of timelessness. These are all creations of your imagination. It indicates that your mind is still spellbound by duality.

Indeed, the very division that you make betwee the conditional and Unconditional is itself conditional and therefore part of the overall illusion which needs to be rejected.


Timelessness is not a perceived reality, but the fulcrum upon which time effects its motion. As Buddha Siddhartha stayed some 20 years following his enlightenment, it appears to be posible to walk, so to say, in both realities simultaneously. That is to say, be in the dream of conceptual awareness, and in the not-dream of non-conceptual reality.

If timelessness is not a perceived reality, then how did you personally experience it?

Again, I'm not challenging your claim that you have experienced some pretty extraordinary altered states of consciousness. I am simply challenging your interpretation and understanding of them. From my perspective, your understanding of them is still very immature and guided far too heavily by other immature people within the spiritual industry.


If you wish to play Joe Scientist, why not do your "super, I'm so miserable among these lowly posters, analysis", and dissect Tilopa's Mahamudra for us low life BigViewers.

http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm

What is there to dissect? It is written in plain language and its meaning is very clear. I agree with every word of it. However, it is likely that I would be in complete disagreement with your own interpretation of it.

-

PS: Thomas, the quote function appears to be playing up. Its functioning seems to change every day, and today it isn't working at all.

-

[Thomas Knierim]

David: PS: Thomas, the quote function appears to be playing up. Its functioning seems to change every day, and today it isn't working at all.

Yes, full quotes are disabled on purpose. They aren't working on any day.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

DQ: But nonetheless, I am still experiencing the monitor in the present. The present is thus very real. If it wasn't for the present, I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

Yes, I certainly understand your point of view. Yet the truth is, you are only experiencing what surrounded you, not what surrounds you. Unfortunately, you will not understand that through a belief in science. For science, if it's not within a "set", it does not exist.

Although you will find fault with this, I assure you that resuscitating the dead has and does occur. There is little of the subject on your TV for the same reason that in Aug 2004, polls showed that 87% of Americans still thought Iraq had WMD's. Or the same reason that 86% of the American Sheeple believe that 'One Nation under God' is appropriate.

Arrogant,...Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. No, I would not say that everyone expresses a feeling of being above the "low".

Actually, you and I are quite the same,...I've simply uncovered, let go of, and unlearned a liitle more than your posts suggest that you have. It is absurd to say that I have a poor quality discourse,... I may have is a limited space or someone not interested in the discussion, but not a poor quality discourse.

You aligning play with Thomas is amusing. I find him to be generally open minded and willing to discuss a subject . I'm also greatful for his creation of this site, and would not consider belittling the members here.

You may not, or perhaps should say, you obviously "think", that there is no Unconditional, that there is somehow a present/Now/instant in time, that there is a beginning and end,...and yet, some of the greatest personlities in history, many Mahasiddha wisemen, many Nobel prize winners, agree with me, not you. Perhaps you should get a prize for your ability to see a particle and a wave at the same instant,...to observe matter outside of time,...to witness motionlessness in motion.

Just because you have not experienced the Unconditional, Causelessness, Timelessness, etc., does not mean it is not so. For me, instead of trashing all the Buddha's as "lowly" no nothings, and things I've said have all be substantiated by the Buddha's, I'd rather see if they have anything substantial to offer. It is ashame there is so much belief in the World.

People do not imagine nor reason beyond their beliefs.

Vicente
:)

[...]

and that train of thought arrived at ENLIGHTENMENT

..just as i suspected, he realised 'i am what i desire' :lol:

[...]

desiring nothing you realize you have everything of any true value

..someone on another forum asked the question: do you desire not desiring? Buddha spent 6 years under a tree desiring he stopped desiring. When he finally realised the stupidity of that notion, he went and did stuff. That's all it takes...

[...]

i never said anything about not desiring desiring

what i said was not desiring

..i know, it wasn't aimed at you, just clarifying my position. That you do not desire is probably a good thing, but why does your friend not like desiring lust?

[...]

so be your logic desiring enlightment is ok because buddha sat down with the profound intention to not get up until he achieved his goal

this is not a smartass question it is very real

are there allowable desires or is all desire attachment

..well, if you desire to rule the world at any cost, i'd say that's not a fruitful desire. OTOH, if you desire to become a great guitar player, than nothing's wrong with that. Desire isn't bad in it's essence, desire can drive us to excel at achieving our potential, but mosttimes when a desire isn't met, it just breeds frustration...

[...]

he feels guilt and as he is not very attractive he rarely has access to what he desires so he is in constant frustration

..that sucks, but we've all been there. I know i have :D Does he ever ask for advice?

[schrodinger]

Vicente Wrote:
Yes, I certainly understand your point of view. Yet the truth is, you are only experiencing what surrounded you, not what surrounds you. Unfortunately, you will not understand that through a belief in science. For science, if it's not within a "set", it does not exist.

Scientists are not as close minded as you seem to think. A close asociation with science, especially the higher mathematics, brings a man to the very edge of philosophical thought, without intending to ever be there! The big difference is: The scientist gets there through bare knuckle fighting with the mathematical expressions of relativity and quantum physics. The philosopher gets there by day dreaming. I will trust the scientific view, it is what philosophers philosophise about!

Although you will find fault with this, I assure you that resuscitating the dead has and does occur. There is little of the subject on your TV for the same reason that in Aug 2004, polls showed that 87% of Americans still thought Iraq had WMD's. Or the same reason that 86% of the American Sheeple believe that 'One Nation under God' is appropriate.

So what are you saying: That if it appears on TV it should be believed? And if it hasn't appeared on TV, it was pre-empted by WMD? Your argument is without any grounding in sense at all. Jesus made a big splash 2000 years ago by supposedly raising Lazarus from the dead. 2000 years ago, but still this serves his followers as proof of his divinity. And you say such a thing happens routinely, and no one takes notice? And you say you don't discount the possibility that YOU can raise the dead?
It is not my intention to ridicule you, but neither can I take you seriously.

[punyasiapa]

Guys, sorry for the interruption.

But, what is nothing. We've never touched it right? Everything in this world is something, and become everything. But to this "nothing" thing, only few of us who had experienced it. Maybe we can say about this "nothing" and try to understand it by something in our mind. But that just trying to feel living in alaska by reading about it. nothing is nothing, what we have in mind is only pointer to that "nothing". So just play with the pointer, don't try to explain.

[vicente]

Scientists are not as close minded as you seem to think. A close asociation with science, especially the higher mathematics, brings a man to the very edge of philosophical thought

Most science is a belief system, not much different than that of religions. For example, the foundation of a mathematical statement is only true in relation to the assumption that 'set theory', that is, that any collection of objects exist. Quantum physics can show that no objects exist, thus, simply put, mathematics is based on a belief in materialism.

I personally know several mathematicians, in fact my little brother is a well known mathematician in his field of space radiation. For them, the more deeply they delve into the "mysteries" of higher math, the less philosophical they get. They're Reductionists, and Reductionists, as some physicist once said, have a snowballs chance in hell to ever realize any part of reality.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't hold philosophy upon any petestal. Love+wisdom does not necessarily = reality.

I have 10 rules which I follow. I'm not attached to them, but simply use them as guidelines. Whereas Seneca said "Do not regard as valuable anything that can be taken away". My rule is to use my attention on that which cannot ever leave us, and what we can ever leave.

To compliment that rule, as I mentioned previously, my life has had little interest in personal, relative, separate, belief-driven truth, so I define truth as that which cannot be shown to be false.

For most people, especially Americans, they believe pretty much what TV tells them to believe. Poll after poll, fact after fact, shows that to be true. For example a March 2004 AP poll, which has not changed, shows that nearly 86 percent of Americans want to keep the reference "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Apparently they don’t believe the First Amendment’s requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is an endorsement of their monotheistic form religious expression.

In May 2002, the 9th District Court said that the "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

In essense, they said "Under God" promoted a situation where Freethinkers, atheists, polytheists, Buddhists, Deists, Wiccans, Humanists, Native Americans, etc, are not members of the Community.

I call that 86% the American Sheeple. They are are very dishonest group,...both to the US Constitution and to themselves. It is not an opinion, it is the relative truth.

Jesus made a big splash 2000 years ago by supposedly raising Lazarus from the dead. 2000 years ago,

No,...there was no big splash 2000 years ago, outside the delusion of the Bible. Not only was no Lazarus raised by a Jesus anywhere in documented history, most, if not all contemporary scholars suggest that the majority of the words and actions attributed to Jesus/Yeshua in the Gospels could not possibly have been said or done by him, even if he did exist

In the 1980's, a bi-yearly gathering of of Biblical scholars, called the Jesus Seminar, concluded that only the word "father" could be traced to Jesus' so-called Sermon on the Mount. The rest of the sermon were words placed in Jesus' mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period, over a hundred Bible Scholars at another seminar, also agreed that Jesus never promised to return, nor had any intention of starting a religion. In response to the above, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said that "these are not maverick scholars, they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts."

As for me, there is no way I would agree with a self-limiting concept that I could not raise the dead, just because it does not occur regularly on TV, or because the American Sheeple have not seen it. The difficulty with this subject is that it is very much beyond the beliefs of many posters here. But that does not make it not so.

I even left a link, that if one followed, 28 simple understandings, that they would not accussing me of a psychosis.

Scientific psychology is founded on the study of the abnormal, and thus attempts to entrain people or Sheeple into normality. Unfortunately, that process renders supernormal as an abnormality.

And so, in the Valley of the Blind, the citizens continue to treat one-eyed persons for their illness.

The Egyptians, Mesoamerican Maya, Naga, etc., had a much more interesting view of things. They would cherish that associated with the sapiential mind, and discard that which was associated with the sciential mind, usually by sucking it out of the head cavity.

Today we have the opposite. The Priests of Science rule the land, and they say disregard the sapiential mind, for their belief system is one of material reductionism. For me, what they attempt to reduce is part of the illusion,...something that both leaves us, and from which we leave.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

But, what is nothing. We've never touched it right?

Nothing can be experienced, but only, from my observations, directly. There are triggers as I've mentioned which can precipitate for us an uncovering of tremendums, that is, direct ecstatic, sapiential experiences. These activities bring pause to ego, beliefs and attachment to the past, and thus free us of preconceived references and predispositions.

Since Nothing, what I call Zero, is the fulcrum upon which all somethings effect their motion, it is accessible to everyone. For the cerebro-centric however, it is difficult to grasp, for Zero cannot be understood that which exists to deny Zero. Or as the Nobel Laureate Max Planck once said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

Vicente
:)

[schrodinger]

punyasiapa wrote:

Guys, sorry for the interruption.

You are not interrupting at all. This thread did start out as a discussion about nothing being something or the other way around! You phrased your comment in an interesting way, in referring to the “pointer”. I think you are on to something with that. Here are my thoughts on this, for whatever they may be worth: (probably “nothing”)
Let’s start with these: ( ). They are of course parentheses. Now let’s try this: (a). What is the “a”? Why, it is a parenthesis. A parenthesis is whatever is enclosed within the parentheses. Now what about that first pair of parentheses, does it have a parenthesis?
Even though there is only a space there, it is still a parenthesis. It has to be, because it is enclosed by parentheses. The point of all this: The very act of creating the parentheses also creates the parenthesis. The very act of using a pointer, creates that which is pointed to. Otherwise it isn’t a pointer, is it? The very act of looking for nothing, removes the essence of nothingness, just as the parentheses create a parenthesis. Is this making any sense?
It is impossible to define nothing without it becoming something. Let’s try making a vacuum. Physicists have found it to be impossible to create a true vacuum. Nature just won’t allow for it. And if you could, how would you contain it? The walls of any container must consist of atoms and molecules, which would boil off into the vacuum, destroying it.
By now you are probably thinking that “nothing” cannot possibly exist. Even in deep space there is no perfect vacuum. Is it possible then, that we have an endless supply of “something” and “nothingness” is just a concept, just a fantastic notion for philosophers and theologians to ponder about?
Not quite. Because scientists go further, even than the most far out philosophers, in their quest to understand and explain the universe. Think back to that vacuum, the container of which is boiling off into the void. Do we have anything like that in the universe? Someplace where the atoms are pressing together with great power and fury, all trying to squeeze into one single point? They are pressing together with such force that they actually fuse into each other, releasing an enormous amount of heat and light! Now where in the universe could that be happening? Of course you already know the answer, in the place you might least expect to find “nothing”, at the very center of all the stars, including of course our own sun. It is the only place “nothing” can possibly exist, according to all the laws of physics. It is protected there. We cannot see it or even point to it, but it is there just as surely as there is a parenthesis for every set of parentheses. But you protest: “How can “nothing” survive there, with all the atoms pressing in under such tremendous force?” :huh:
It survives because they are pressing in with such tremendous force! Think of the ten fat lady shoppers, all trying to get in the door of Macy’s at the annual spring sale. They press together in a symmetrical arch such that none of them can enter the door. The harder they press, the less chance of any of them getting in. That’s how it works but on a much grander scale.
Of course, this “nothing” will remain forever inaccessible to us, but at least we know where it is. And that is something! :)

[...]

desire is treacherous

..but that isn't the case for you anymore, is it? You can experience desire, use it to your benefit but stear clear of it's pitfalls. I agree with you that those who continue to be swayed by ego desire is/can be treacherous, but once you've seen what it can lead to, there's no reason for desire to be a bad thing. You now have an option...

[...]

..nothing isn't an experience. It is of no consequence to daily life, but it might serve a purpose philosophically. Ponder it, and you may surprise yourself...

[for punyasiapa]

[...]

'the one who is less invested prevails'

..i'm curious. Prevails implies reward, doesn't it? What would that be?

[...]

[psyche]

..were does that leave dear ol' Buddha? He desired enlightenment so badly he sat under a tree for 6 years. Was he wrong for doing so? I happen to agree with most of what you wrote, i like the stoïc approach :)

[David Quinn]

psyche wrote:

therefore even though buddha sat down under that tree determined not to get up till he reached enlightenment he did not care how long it took

It took him a night to reach it. I'm surpised it took him that long. It only takes a few minutes to reach enlightenment if one has enough intelligence and desire.

Perhaps the second guy in your Hindu stoy was dancing because he saw there were still thousands of lifetimes to go before he reached the nightmare of enlightenment. He was celebrating that it was still far off in the distance.

-

[David Quinn]

Vincente wrote:

DQ: But nonetheless, I am still experiencing the monitor in the present. The present is thus very real. If it wasn't for the present, I wouldn't be able to experience anything at all.

V: Yes, I certainly understand your point of view. Yet the truth is, you are only experiencing what surrounded you, not what surrounds you. Unfortunately, you will not understand that through a belief in science. For science, if it's not within a "set", it does not exist.

My point has nothing to do with science. The very fact that you say, "you are experiencing what surrounded you", shows that you do indeed acknowledge and agree that I am experiencing things in the present.


Although you will find fault with this, I assure you that resuscitating the dead has and does occur. There is little of the subject on your TV for the same reason that in Aug 2004, polls showed that 87% of Americans still thought Iraq had WMD's. Or the same reason that 86% of the American Sheeple believe that 'One Nation under God' is appropriate.

This is a meaningles point. I could just as easily turn it back onto you and say that just because you read something in a book, it doesn't mean it is true.

What's the difference between those sheeple who mindlessly accept what the government says and those sheeple who mindlessly accept what's written in a Tibetan book?


Arrogant,...Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. No, I would not say that everyone expresses a feeling of being above the "low".

I do it explicitly, you do it implicitly.


You aligning play with Thomas is amusing. I find him to be generally open minded and willing to discuss a subject . I'm also greatful for his creation of this site, and would not consider belittling the members here.

You are constantly belittling them with your appeals to authority figures and your tendency to make outrageous remarks without backing them up with reasons.


You may not, or perhaps should say, you obviously "think", that there is no Unconditional, that there is somehow a present/Now/instant in time, that there is a beginning and end,...and yet, some of the greatest personlities in history, many Mahasiddha wisemen, many Nobel prize winners, agree with me, not you. Perhaps you should get a prize for your ability to see a particle and a wave at the same instant,...to observe matter outside of time,...to witness motionlessness in motion.

Do you remember the famous story of Hui Neng? He was an illiterate fellow back in 7th century China who was recognized to be enlightened by his Zen Master after he submitted a high-quality stanza, one that was far superior to the leading monk's stanza.

The leading monk's stanza was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

Your approach and world-view, Vincente, aligns itself with the first stanza. You are like the ordinary monk who tries to wipe away the "illusion of perceived reality" in order to expose a bright mirror of "timelessness" underneath. Enlightened people laugh at such folly. Hui Neng is rightly regarded as one of the greatest spiritual figures of all time and he explicitly rejected your approach and world-view.

For six years, the Buddha tried to escape the world and enter into a state of timelessness by fasting and meditating, only to eventually see the stupidity of it. It was only then that he decided to sit down and not get up until he solved the ultimate riddle of Reality. It was only then that he realized the emptiness of all things and ascended to the higher position as expressed in Hui Neng's stanza.

There is a famous dialogue in Zen:

Student: Is an awakened man still subject to the law of cause and effect?

Master: He does not obscure it.

Enlightenment involves bringing one's true nature into full visibility by becoming transparent and ceasing to be what we are not. It doesn't involve trying to discard this world in favour of another. Nietzsche used to scoff at those people who tried to do this, calling them ghouls who hated life.

Most people within the spiritual industry are incredibly deluded, so it would be very foolish to look to them for support for one's views. If the blind follow the blind, they will all fall into the pit. Only a handful of sages in history truly understood the highest wisdom - people such as Hakuin, Huang Po, Diogenes, Hui Neng, Chuang Tzu, Kierkegaard, etc. These kinds of people are as rare as the stars at midday. You could live your whole life and not meet one.

-

[David Quinn]

Psyche wrote:

P: therefore even though buddha sat down under that tree determined not to get up till he reached enlightenment he did not care how long it took

DQ: It took him a night to reach it. I'm surpised it took him that long. It only takes a few minutes to reach enlightenment if one has enough intelligence and desire.

P: i know it only took him one night

but if he had imposed any limitation on the situation he would not have had the boundless experience of infinity

He imposed the limitation that his enlightenment had to be real and true. He wasn't going to accept anything less than a complete breakthrough into ultimate understanding.


i don't think desire is the right word neither is intelligence

it would be more likely knowledge/wisdom jhana and openness/emptiness bhakti

Well, knowledge/wisdom jhana and openness/emptiness bhakti was what he was pursuing. But in order to reach such a magnificent attainment, he had to desire it with all his heart, all his mind, all his strength, and all his soul. This was implicit in his resolve never to get up again until he had broken through into ultimate understanding.

One needs to search for enlightenment with the same intensity that a drowning man seeks air. Otherwise, it is impossible to break free of the relentless pull of worldliness and ignorance.


why do you think it is a nightmare

From the ego's perspective, enlightenment is a nightmare because it represents the death of everything it values. That is why hardly anyone ever seeks it.


all evolved people i have met are either very detached or very cheerful but always absolutely relaxed and at ease in every way

It can be easily faked, particularly if you are a guru with a powerful ego surrounded by followers who worship everything that you do.

Who is an example of an evolved person, in your view?

-

[redraven]

Determinism is the logical consequence of a rational mind. I do what I do because I am what I am, eccentric, lovable maybe, intense but able to get along, and then that loser who keeps bugging me is just that, a loser.

One of my satori experiences proved to me absolutely that I have no free will. I don't live that way, no one can, "Nirvana is Samsara" says Nargajuna. But I accept that I'm essentially a gear in the wheel, and far from making me a loser, it's made me the happiest I've ever been.

I'm not a loser, I'm a good egg, and I'm going as far as I can push it (outside of satori) and as far as I go (within satori). Thinking in brackets really helps me.