paths that lead to truth

[clyde]

Nick;

Pointless? For example, do you think that D.Quinn’s book wherein he shares his insights into reality is pointless? Do you think sharing insights with others is pointless? Perhaps you believe you are where you are solely on your own effort without any assistance from others. If you do, then you are still far from knowing the truth.

clyde

[Nick]

Nick;

Pointless? For example, do you think that D.Quinn’s book wherein he shares his insights into reality is pointless? Do you think sharing insights with others is pointless?

Quinn's book is a fine example of how to teach someone to reason properly. It doesn't reveal any particular Truths in itself, it points to them. Truth can only be revealed by one's own application of these methods.

Asking me what Truths I have revealed for myself is an entirely different scenario. A fairly pointless scenario.

Perhaps you believe you are where you are solely on your own effort without any assistance from others. If you do, then you are still far from knowing the truth.

How can I have my own efforts if there is no I to own them? Now there's some Truth for you.

[clyde]

Nick;

D.Quinn does use reason and logic as his tools, but he wrote this in the Introduction,

It is important that the reader approach this material in the right frame of mind. The truths that I will be presenting in the following chapters should not be viewed as final resting places or fixed positions to grasp tightly with one’s mind or ego. Think of them, rather, as stepping stones to even greater realizations. Although these truths are important to know in their own right, one should never lose sight of the main prize, which is the full and complete understanding of Ultimate Reality. Don't ever settle for meagre crumbs.

[emphasis added]

clyde

[Nick]

He can present as many truths as he wants, but like he said they are only stepping stones to Absolute Truth. If you really want the Truth revealed you must do the reasoning for yourself. What good is the correct answer if you don't understand exactly why it is correct?

[Matt Gregory]

Clyde,

It doesn't really work that way. You can't simply ask someone for wisdom and expect to receive it without any effort. And on top of that there's the problem of who to ask. You would have to be wise yourself in order to figure out who is wise enough to ask. The only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your own mind, so there's no alternative but to become wise yourself.

Anyway, surely this isn't a hard problem. I mean, people are caused to do what they do no matter how wise they are, or would you not agree with that? Even if a person has compassion they still need to act in response to a particular situation. People don't just pull their decisions out of thin air, they base them on what's going on around them. And if someone is teaching someone else, then the teacher must perceive a lack in the student that he is attempting to rectify, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in teaching him, as there's no reason to change something that's already complete. See what I'm saying?

Rather an interesting two paragraphs. You end the first paragraph by stating that “there's no alternative but to become wise yourself.” That’s reasonable. But then what is a teacher to teach? In other words, if as you wrote, “[t]he only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your own mind”, then we have no need for teachers,

We may not need teachers (depending on the natural abilities of the person), but a teacher can be such a big help that it would be foolish not to take advantage of one if you can.

However, the reason I made that statement is to bring up the point that the ultimate authority on what's true is yours and can't be delegated to someone else.

Even if you believe that "X is true because Mr. Y said it's true", it's still a fact that you used the authority of your own reason to decide that you were going to listen to Mr. Y.

So it's always up to you to make sure your thoughts are correct and you want to be very careful not to accept or reject anything without thinking it through to the end.

Of course, I'm not only talking about spiritual gurus. Everyone is a teacher and all of our experiences are part of the learning process. You have to treat everything with extreme suspicion.

the only “lack” is faith in our own mind which leads us to seek teachers, and this is the only thing a teacher can really teach.

Well, no, a teacher can't teach faith. A teacher can teach truths about faith, but if he's teaching you faith then you're going down the blind alley of trusting what the teacher says.

True faith is only really possible when you're staring Ultimate Reality in the face. Then you'll know you have faith.

But if you're not, then it's best to have faith only in what you know for certain to be true.

In short, don't settle for anything less than total certainty, have faith in it, and you'll go far.

[Matt Gregory]

You can help people with kindness and stuff, and that's great, but without wisdom all you can really do is manipulate appearances. It may help in the short term, but working towards a long term solution is a wiser way to go in my opinion.

True compassion is not motivated by anything.

Sure it is. It's motivated by wisdom. Just because someone is motivated to do something doesn't necessarily mean that they do it out of ignorance.

True "help" does not come from a desire to help.

When desire is there, "kindness" is merely ego building, and any "help" issued from this place is just as you stated, the manipulation of appearances. This is rather useful if you are literally drowning in a lake, a situation in which you may be very content with the mere manipulation of appearances. It is not so useful in respect to helping someone to see themself.

Absolutely, I agree with all this.

Compassion is the natural expression of not being moved by desire. It does not need to reference any set of beliefs to know what to do or how to act, as it unconsciously stems from truth wherever it is.

Well, if compassion doesn't stem from consciousness, then I don't know why you would call it "compassion", as that term is normally used in reference to what a person consciously does. Like if Inspector Jacques Clouseau is walking along a pier without noticing that someone is drowning below and he accidentally kicks a life preserver off the dock, saving the person, I wouldn't consider that an act of compassion, but just a happy accident.

"Correct Action", as Siddhattha put it, occurs when desire does not dictate action.

Sure, it's action done without flaws in consciousness.

[clyde]

Matt;

I agree with you that “[e]veryone is a teacher and all of our experiences are part of the learning process,” even the experience of being lost, feeling a lack, or the absence of faith.

Regarding faith, I did not mean that a teacher can teach faith. My point is: it is the student who experiences being lost, feeling a lack, and/or the absence of faith and seeks the teacher; and the teacher can only point to “[t]he only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your [the student’s] own mind”.

clyde

[Tharan]

The path does not end at death, life and death is the space in which the path perpetually collects focus.

How do you now this to be true? I have also read it in some pop-sci/new age books, but they tend to be written by people who have never died.

The mind and enlightenment never meet.

Then how did the concept of enlightenment come into existence? Is it similar to the concepts "perfection" and "infinity?"

On the deathbed of a Buddha, you could also find a mind in which sits a conglomeration of contradictions, painful psychological memories, identifications, longings, attachments, people’s faces and all the rest of it.The mind is only ever the mind; it has only the language of the mind with which to exist. A Buddha is one who sees the mind as it is without wishing for it to be something else, whose relationship with the mind is fearlessly beautiful in this respect.

How are you aware of the deathbed thoughts of a Buddha?

So the Buddha is desirous and yet without desire? Like being hungry without wanting food?

Why is the mind only the mind? Can it not grow and change? Or are you talking of genetic and chemical processes? Is there a difference?

Attachments and aversions never leave the mind.

When I was young like you, I used to like to fight. I enjoyed it. It was my favorite sport. Not so much anymore. The mountains to climb grew higher and eventually had very little to do with other people. I still have the memories though, but they are stories of a different person; a silly, typical, obnoxious, overly hormonal teenager. My attachments have changed.

The path to self-realization is not about altering the way the mind is, it is about developing awareness regards the relationship with the mind. Anyone changing what their mind is doing has some motive for doing so, some motive for doing something other than just looking (like for example, fear of the pain caused by attachment and aversion).

I agree with this, in general. But the mind can and is altered. Synaptic pathways are adjusted everytime you read a book. Even readng this sentence is rearranging the substance of the brain. But the point is awareness of how the change takes place. It gives both foundation and aspiration.

You cannot watch the mind and self-identify with its output simultaneously.

Interesting. If I interpret this correctly, I think you contradict yourself a little. Reminds me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but it fails that analogy by means of the complexity inherent in the system of the mind. The mind is not a particle. Complex systems can absorb point contact without dramatically affecting the other parts.

Wasn't there an operation that was done to some extreme epilepsy cases in the past where they separate the two brain hemispheres by cutting the corpus callosum? I remember seeing a program where people would describe their left hand buttoning a shirt and the right unbuttoning the same shirt.

Personally, I often catch myself thinking delusional thoughts; like I should make more money or that woman has a nice ass or why wasn't I born King of the World? In these cases, am I not both monitoring and self-identifying?

[Matt Gregory]

I agree with you that “[e]veryone is a teacher and all of our experiences are part of the learning process,” even the experience of being lost, feeling a lack, or the absence of faith.

Yeah, even the experience of elation, feeling certain, etc. We're all nothing more than robots created by causal conditioning.

Regarding faith, I did not mean that a teacher can teach faith. My point is: it is the student who experiences being lost, feeling a lack, and/or the absence of faith and seeks the teacher; and the teacher can only point to “[t]he only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your [the student’s] own mind”.

Yeah, but any truth given does that if the teacher and student are both wise enough. A productive situation will always cause the student to look within himself.

[clyde]

Matt;

We're all nothing more than robots created by causal conditioning.

Maybe. Maybe not.

If that is the case, there is no way we can independently know that because all we know is what we would be causally conditioned to know which, as I view it, means we should have no faith in what we ‘know’ (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case).

Further, if that is the case, there is no need to do anything (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case). For example, there is no need to seek the truth or imagine that you are seeking the truth, because what you do (or imagine) is causally conditioned.

Finally, if that is the case, there is no need to do be concerned about anything (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case). Of course, one will be concerned or not based on causal conditioning, but there is no need be concerned about being concerned or not.

clyde

[Matt Gregory]

I replied in a new thread called Are we robots?

[kennyvii]

Having faith in reason is the only path to Truth.

Faith in something other than reason is a form of ignorance - it is what Islamic fundamentalists do. Reason without faith can only result in dry, academic intellectualizing. [...]

An insane person, an Islamic fundi, or any of us possessing less than perfect sanity would always faithfully reason our way to a less than perfect truth. Therefore, in the pursuit of Truth, it isn't enough to merely have faith in reason.

edit: ..unless you had (and how could you know?) perfect sanity to begin with.
How does an insane man (every man) reason his way to Truth?

[Anti-christ]

" I don't know whathc your talking about..?" is my favorite phrase. Whence thee eye canst behold a new belonging, given grace abounds. Forward, we move to our followers next points.
Since, we were born into dignity, we shall die in dignity. Charma, balances out our innermission. Trade not with your brother, or he will see god, first...

These are the words of Karma, which he gave to me on my day of study.

Safely driven into the peace of ultimate enlightenment, I saw his face. He looked very happy, and enjoyed my company. Thereafter, we were taken to his home. Were I was able to wash his holiness' feet.

He gladly thanked me for leaving and steping into his house. "They are no match." he says to me. I answer, " Who?" He says, " My folowers"

I gladly accept his token of appreciation, and continue my journey into his home.

Our journey counsisted of meditation, and of course eating [which was his favorite play]

There is much laughter in my soul. There is no begining to my ways of thinking [play]. My soul, your soul, comes from a desolate land. Imagine, where is the origin of a soul? Does it appear when you are born? Nor, does it appear on your birthday?

Throught out my experiences in a world full of my own thoughts. There is no begining nor end to my quest. Only, that I can wash his feet again/

[David Quinn]

kennyvii wrote:

An insane person, an Islamic fundi, or any of us possessing less than perfect sanity would always faithfully reason our way to a less than perfect truth. Therefore, in the pursuit of Truth, it isn't enough to merely have faith in reason.

edit: ..unless you had (and how could you know?) perfect sanity to begin with.
How does an insane man (every man) reason his way to Truth?

At root, it is pure luck.

A chance insight into life when young; the good fortune to read something wise at the right time of your development; a chance encounter with a wise philosopher, again at the right time of your development; the sudden, unexpected experience of a profound altered state; and so on.

This sort of experience can, if you are lucky enough, spark you onto the right path, even without you knowing it at the time. And then later, as you develop your consciousness and you become more skilled at reasoning, you can begin to zero in on the Truth more consciously. From then on, it is a piece of cake.

-