Death Is

[R. Steven Coyle]

Fair enough. But philosophy can be oppressive, at least some of the time.

[suergaz]

You're right, I should have written 'seriousness that is not inherently oppressive'
:D

[R. Steven Coyle]

"And...Suergaz with the block..."

"Oh!"

"A, :D!"

"...That's humour as truth, Phil."

[edit: Last minute change of lineup. My own father in for suergaz!?]

:)

[David Quinn]

suergaz wrote:

I'm pleased I got to meet Hu Zheng. I'm always pleased to meet people whose seriousness is not oppressive of necessity.

For those who are interested, some of Hu Zheng's writings can be found here. He definitely has some quality, although I'm pretty sure that suergaz and I like him for different reasons. I like him because his seriousness is oppressive of necessity. In fact, that is where his sense of humour shines brightest.

-

[suergaz]

You may not have read my last post before yours in this thread David.

[bert]

I really don't know what either of you are talking about....make sense.

The conception of "I am not" must of necessity follow the conception of "I am",because of its grammar,as surely in this world of sorrow night follows day.The recognition of pain as such ,implies the idea of pleasure,and so with all things.
Who desires this duality?

through conception there is conflict and incompatibility.

you tyrannise over yourself,so constantly forget what you remember;you resist sense objects and show resistance to the faculties by believing or not.These faculties are as numerous as the atoms you have not yet seen,and they are as endless as the number one - they come into life at will.you adopt a few at a time - knowledge you speak through them - did you but understand your grammer ,those you disown speak louder than your words!I would not believe the wisdom of the Almighty.

By allowing maturity is to predicate decay...
by giving non-resistance is retrogression to simplicity and the passage to the original and unity without the idea.

the idea that gives the formula to inhabit death.by this death our inevitability is accelerated,though it we escape our unending delay;by its attachement ,the Ego is swept up as a leaf in the fierce gale.Things that are self-evident are no longer obscure,as by his own will he pleases,know this as the negation of all faith by living it,the end of the duality of the consciousness.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott wrote to bert and Steven:

I really don't know what either of you are talking about....make sense.

They don’t want to make sense -- not badly enough, if at all. They want to revel in their meaningless world of “light, love and illusion” and they want you not to share it with them but to acknowledge its supreme divinity with the same “passion” and idiotically “poetic” discourse. Initially, I was going to make an exception with bert, who’s first language is not English, as I recall it. Then, I realised he has made enough effort to express himself in the way that he does, there’s no reason he couldn’t quite easily master plain English if he wanted to.

I will take more time to reply to your other post.

[Beingof1]

Boy-preachers are quite common and often a great success. They intuitively understand the emotional behind the theological and can preach the lines with utmost sincerity. Your traditional upbringing in a preacher family explains all the exposure to the unspoken masculine 'ideal' of the preacher. My brother used to stand on the chair delivering his sermons in all earnest. It was his role model.
If you check the history of UG Krishamurti you'll find a similar 'expectation' fueling later experiences and interpretations.

Could be that I have hidden "unspoken masculine 'ideal' of the preacher". I do not speak in organized religous circles and have not for many years. They kicked me out of the good ole boy network anyway as I do not have anything resembling a 'theological doctrine'.

When I behold myself I do not see a person or identity. I see a manifestation of the eternal beyond an image. I really do not see a 'person' to compare, glorify, or idealize. Yet I derive my greatest satisfaction from helping to alleiviate suffering and in this might be the hidden 'ideal' that you refer to. If this is my remaining attachment then so be it.

Me: When I reached 15 I had already seen many of what could only be termed the 'miraculous'.

Diebert: At that age our critical skills are often less developed. There's no indication you really investigated what you witnessed. Others did, like myself, and always found a lot of question marks if one is inquiring deeply enough, on the edge of being rude. The human mind is deceptive and it deceives, most of the time! Doesn't mean there aren't real mysteries left about causes and effects.

Oh but I did investigate. The memory of these events are identical to the recollection of others who witnessed the same. Yes indeed Diebert, there are more mysteries to the vast universe then can be counted as they are infinite. We can still be sure of truth and what is certain in all possible worlds however.

Me: I died for about three hours and after I came back I was thrust into a vision. I saw things and heard things while I was gone but the vision, after I returned, let me know what my life would now consist of.

Diebert: Many people reported these things when close to death, although they are often coloured by their personal framework, often laid down in their youth which still seems to rule.

Yes, many have seen the same or similar things. I do not have a frame of reference to symbolize it all with as the experience brought the understanding of beyond relative comparisons.

Me: I was instantly healed of the luekemia - without a trace. I was given the answer to every question I had ever had, you know, the hard ones like whats the meaning to life?

Diebert: I believe you had a powerful experience, and it might have been crucial in reversing whatever is was you were suffering from.

I think you are right here. I had much bitterness and resentment built up and it kinda just poured itself out of me.

It sounds similar to what is often described as acute 'kundalini awakening'. But you might have lost at the same time objectivity if it came to interpreting events around you. But ultimately those events are not important of course.

I agree; what is important is in surrendering to truth that allows for freedom. To be liberated from all that would bind us.

Me: I have seen a bullet pass through a mans body without leaving a mark

Diebert: Then how do you know if the bullet actually attempted to go through the body if there was no mark or other trace? Maybe it went another way or didn't leave the gun at all? It's very hard to research these things outside controlled circumstance. It's quite unlikely you have been able to research all the possibilities.

I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn`t'. As you well know my wise friend, that is a rabbit trail.

To answer your question; there was a hole in the center of the back of the chair where this man was sitting. We found the bullet later.

Something clearly happened to you. But how do you know your perception isn't skewed by the 'fall-out' of the experience.

Initially, that was a problem, as I associated an identity with the experience as somehow elevating the past 'me' to greater and catapulted self centerdness.

I now am free from all expectations(of future projections) and experience a continuos humming like flow that never ceases. I feel compassion for everyone and everything and regard all others with equal concern and care. The experience never stops and is ever fascinating each and every moment. There is what could be described as a deep joy that has flooded my being with expectation of the trill of not knowing what comes next.

Why are you interpreting everything though symbols of your childhood christian past?

All due respect but that is your projection. I use Christ as an example as well as all past sages (look at my past posts). I do admit to a certain affinity to Jesus as it was Christianity that I learned and studied the most. My experience of awakening is most like his with the nonordinary so accentuated. I do believe he is the symbol that is needed because of the lesson involved that his life demonstrates like non other.

I do use his life as an example as when he said on the cross "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" was the supreme act of forgiveness. After he was tortured, beaten, and condemned to a criminal death - he still forgave. He did not say "Father, forgive them; except Judas, Pilate, Caiphais, and all the disciples that have forsaken me".

The resurrection is also an important symbol but a sign is only just that. I would much rather experience Christ than to worship him, know what I mean? He has become who I am so to speak above and beyond all symbols.

Me: It is always important to forgive and tell the truth, everytime, all the time, 100 percent of the time.

Diebert: To know truth, investigation must be always ongoing.

I think this is very important as some have come to the conclusion that when enlightenment is experienced all learning stops. On the contrary; that is when it really begins and never seems to have an end as the universe itself is in a constant state of flux and so the truly aware learn the most constantly.

I have no doubt you have reached a deep understanding. But in my opinion the supernatural framing is not a good sign. It might prevent you from moving on, a childhood ghost keeping you at bay.

I never stop 'moving on'. I have learned that I will always be learning and to be open beyond preconceptions of what is and is not possible.

The experience was a point of reference it was not an end all. I now see that there are no limitations save only what we choose to apply for a frame of existence and communication. Our true state of being is beyond all definitions, characterizations, and limitations including life and death.

Me: Push beyond the physical stimulations of attachment to the body. Tantalizing emotions bind our freedom to the next best thing of transcendance of the material plane. (1)Let the body and brain do your bidding and remain an observer of the unique creation of what you have formed out of water, amino acids, and electricity.
Good job that.

Leyla: Considering the text I have italicised and bolded, this really speaks of nothing more than an altered state of consciousness rather than any sort of ground-breaking, revelatory ultimate truth.

That is all you wanted from what was written. I can only teach what you learn and you can only teach what I learn.

It also seems to be saying that transcendence of the material plane merely involves a surrendering to it [see (1)], “allowing” the body and brain to be the active component of self and self the effect.

That is not what I was saying at all.

The body is the source of the ego as it is the survival mechanism that keeps us trapped in the world of the 5 senses. The body and brain give rise to the idea that there is an identity to preserve and projects its image into the future.

But at the same time it posits self as cause of that which it is supposed to take a back seat to. Well, that definitely points to the idea that all things lack inherent existence, but it still has a very sharp and contradictory, egocentric twist as it--all the while--implies the subjugation of objective existence to individual will.

There is no 'self' in the body or the brain. They are the source of this delusion - understand? If survival is the primary motivator it results in a separated experience and attachment.

What it is that creates the body and brain is what we need to take the time to know intimately as this is the source of liberty.

On the question of “a personal, everlasting consciousness”:

Consciousness is not 'personal'. It is beyond a self or identity.

Aside from any reverent permutations for the moment, why do you think you came back to life as a living, physical organism? What did you have to say to yourself about this--that is, how did you justify it?

There is only one purpose in the universe - understanding that brings compassion or agape.

Can you die and come back to life at will? If not, in what way exactly have you transcended “the physical plane”?

I am not a body or a brain - I am everything.

[Leyla Shen]

That is all you wanted from what was written.

How utterly short-sighted and selfish of you.

Obviously, you have no idea what I wanted from what was written.

[Beingof1]

Leyla Shen:

How utterly short-sighted and selfish of you.

Obviously, you have no idea what I wanted from what was written.

Then what did you learn?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Beingof1 wrote:

I am everything

Wait a sec, I don’t know about this one. I'm skeptical of your psychological motive here?

Are you claiming to have knowledge that you are everything or are you saying that you are undivided from the world?

[Leyla Shen]

Ken,

I am continually learning that there are still way too many people who think they know what they are saying when they actually don’t.

For instance, you wrote:

(1) "I can only teach what you learn and you can only teach what I learn"; and later,

(2) "That is not what I was saying at all."

Then you are not a very good teacher.

Edit: Heh. Yet, you had the balls -- somehow -- to try to pull this off:

That is all you wanted from what was written.

.

[bert]

Scott wrote to bert and Steven:

I really don't know what either of you are talking about....make sense.

They don’t want to make sense -- not badly enough, if at all. They want to revel in their meaningless world of “light, love and illusion” and they want you not to share it with them but to acknowledge its supreme divinity with the same “passion” and idiotically “poetic” discourse. Initially, I was going to make an exception with bert, who’s first language is not English, as I recall it. Then, I realised he has made enough effort to express himself in the way that he does, there’s no reason he couldn’t quite easily master plain English if he wanted to.

I will take more time to reply to your other post.

all thoughts are presupposed from other suppositions that have reality in a differential of Reality:otherwise there would be an irreflexive unalterable zero plus zero.

is that unpoetic enough?

[R. Steven Coyle]

Ken,

I just awoke from another Universe [the dream state], and found this thread, and your words in particular, an immediate synchronistic aide. Thank you (?) for your being.

Have you given any thought to the idea of the Universe as a hologram? "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot is an excellent read.

[sschaula]

Cosmic prostitute wrote:

To be everything you would need to be able to perceive every inch of the universe in one single moment.

That's not true. If you were to perceive every inch of the universe, you'd either be really fast or very big (bigger than the universe itself)...and you'd also need to see yourself. I don't believe any human is fast enough to see the whole universe in one single moment. I KNOW that no human is big enough.

Being everything is truly understanding the ideas that this forum is about. Someone can think they're everything, but that isn't an experience, and they're still unenlightened. Someone can say it, but that's even less than thinking it for themselves. There's a difference between thinking you're everything and knowing you're everything. Knowing you're everything has to do with there being no individual self in your mind.

Lets think about this some more...

You are a human being. You have a body, and your body types on a computer and sends your ideas to this forum. Your ideas are created by your brain. Now, how did your brain come to those ideas? Did they just magically appear....did you think them up on your own....were you nudged into thinking these ideas by other people? All three?

The mind is completely caused. Nothing is truly thought up on your own, because every thought you have is based off of something. The day you were born your mind had no ideas. Now today, years later, your mind is brimming with them. You philosophize. All of this philosophy was put into your mind by things in the universe. It just happened that you became what you became.

They say that one small thing changes the course of the entire universe, like a butterfly flapping its wings changes everything. That is true. Each thing depends on the next, and the whole universe changes like a domino effect. I'm sure there's some computer program out there that could represent this....but I'm not nerdy enough to make one.

A butterfly flapping its wings caused you to be born and think your thoughts. If it hadn't done that, there would've been a different domino effect and you would have never been.

Your body is the same way. None of you exists on its own, although you may seem like the most real thing in the world. You rely on the rest of existence for your own existence...you're the product of all things.

Truly understanding this, the "ego" (which is the delusion which causes all of this "I" business) disappears as if it had never existed. In fact, it doesn't exist. It's just something the mind uses to cope with reality. It's a false concept, which gets applied to everything in the world. Some people become so trapped in this false concept that they begin to believe that they're the entire universe.

But understanding that you're the entire universe is about having no false concept. Saying, "I am the entire universe" is true, but it's misleading. "I" implies a distinct part of the universe...."am" implies a becoming of a distinct part of the universe..."the" implies a separate part of the universe..."entire" is a good word....and "universe" makes all things out to be a part of all things. Saying "I am the entire universe" is like saying, "Reality is all that there is, and all things are illusion".

Make sense, prostitute?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I’m a skeptical of the psychological motive behind the statement: “I know I’m everything” it seems rather silly and irrational to my mind. Seems like an ego using the imagination see derive self-esteem.


sshaula wrote:

Saying "I am the entire universe" is like saying, "Reality is all that there is, and all things are illusion".

I don’t think so. it important to recognize the psychological motivation behind a statement, an individual can never claim to be the entire universe. it’s just plain irrational. You are not the entire universe, you are one small invisible human being typing a message on a messageboard, that’s all you are.

Moreover you can never have knowledge that you are the entire universe, you are tricking yourself.

Very few sages have ever uttered such a thing because there was no “I” there to utter it.

I agree with statements such as:

The man with everything is nothing.
The man with nothing has everything.

This is completely different than uttering the statement: “I Know I am the entire universe” sounds crazy that’s all, and I’m skeptical of the psychological motive behind the statement.

[R. Steven Coyle]

bert,

My insides quake at your words, as my alarm clock may tick. Yes! I have hidden behind conception. In lieu of light? Yes, again. And. again. Why was I trying to teach myself through purpose? I was quickly becoming a simpleton, scared of simplicity!

[Jason]

They say that one small thing changes the course of the entire universe, like a butterfly flapping its wings changes everything. That is true. Each thing depends on the next, and the whole universe changes like a domino effect. I'm sure there's some computer program out there that could represent this....but I'm not nerdy enough to make one.

A butterfly flapping its wings caused you to be born and think your thoughts. If it hadn't done that, there would've been a different domino effect and you would have never been.

This type of scientific-like causation is uncertain. It's not possible to prove that this domino effect actually occurs, it's not possible to know with absolute certainty that cause 1 creates effect 2, it's not possible to know for certain that flicking the light switch causes the light bulb to begin to glow. Undermining the ego with these ideas is useless if what you seek is certainty. The early parts of David's "Wisdom of the Infinite" make this mistake.

[sschaula]

Cosmic Prostitute wrote:

You are not the entire universe, you are one small invisible human being typing a message on a messageboard, that’s all you are.

Moreover you can never have knowledge that you are the entire universe, you are tricking yourself.

Of course I'm one small invisible human being typing a message on a messageboard...but what is that? A human being is a piece of the universe, which is one.

If I cut off my toe, is that toe still me? No, I wouldn't call it me. If I cut off my penis, is half of me in the penis and half in this mutilated body? No, I think I am not included in that cut off penis. If I take out my eyes, am I in my eyes laying on the ground? No, I am not in those eyes because I don't travel with them. If half of my brain is taken out, does myself go along with that half? No, my self does not go along with it and it stays right here. When my heart is taken out during surgery, and replaced with a new one, do I go along with that excavated heart? No, I stay here and my heart goes.

What is the "I" that stays?! Why do I stay no matter what it taken from this body?

My beliefs have certainly changed over the years. When I was a new born I probably didn't have much of any beliefs. I came into this world wondering 'What the fuck is this!" My blue eyes were bright and wide open in curiosity. In the beginning, my beliefs were nothing, therefore I am not my beliefs. If I were my beliefs, they'd always be here. Sometimes something drastic happens which causes my beliefs to change even in just one day. Lets say I believe killing people is bad, than someone comes and murders my little brother. All of a sudden, my beliefs have changed into "killing murderers is good." I am definitely not my beliefs...which could be also called my "character".

Am I my thoughts? Everyday my thoughts disappear into nothingness, when I go to sleep. My thoughts come and go, and sometimes I have none. Sometimes I just "experience" the world and don't have any thought going on. Sometimes I don't experience the world at all and I'm completely absorbed in my thoughts. My thoughts are like waves, coming and going out of my awareness...I'm definitely not my thoughts, because I am always here.

Am I "that which sees everything"? Am I "Sat-Chit-Ananda" (existence, consciousness, bliss)? Truly, anything I point to disappears and I can't be said to be contained in just that thing. When I say that I am that which sees, a body is saying it and of course a body isn't consciousness...it can only reflect consciousness so much as the ego is gone.

I am not. There isn't an "I" in truth. There is only one reality. Being a part of reality, and this individual knowing there is no individuality, I say with confidence that I am everything. If you can say that I'm a human being, just a speck in existence, I can say that I am all of existence because to be a human being is to be a necessary part of the rest of existence.

I have knowledge that I'm the entire universe because I know that there are no boundaries, and there is no inherent existence. I may be a wrinkle in the blanket of reality, but knowing that, I know that I am all of reality. To be a wrinkle in the blanket means that I AM the blanket.

Of course, this knowledge doesn't make me special or anything. I don't experience cool shit like knowing God or seeing the cosmos or anything. I just know a sensible truth about cause and effect. If you read Wisdom of the Infinite I'm sure you'll get it, too.

Not like you need to understand or anything, though. It's ONLY an understanding of absolute truth. It doesn't make you some God on earth or anything. In fact, let me tell you something about my day. Today I woke up, brushed my teeth, did some yoga, ate breakfast, watched the tv, checked up on the internet....

That's what I did, and that's what I'm aware of. I'm not sitting here thinking "I am the sun suspended in space, and I am thousands of other suns." Although it'd be a cool thing to think about, I don't think about it. My awareness is confined to this body, and isn't in the rest of the universe.

I am normal.

Make sense yet?

[Leyla Shen]

bert wrote:

is that unpoetic enough?

Hm. Maybe, maybe not. First question:

all thoughts are presupposed from other suppositions that have reality in a differential of Reality:otherwise there would be an irreflexive unalterable zero plus zero.

Why "zero plus zero" and not just "zero"?

[sschaula]

This type of scientific-like causation is uncertain. It's not possible to prove that this domino effect actually occurs, it's not possible to know with absolute certainty that cause 1 creates effect 2, it's not possible to know for certain that flicking the light switch causes the light bulb to begin to glow. Undermining the ego with these ideas is useless if what you seek is certainty. The early parts(amongst others) of David's "Wisdom of the Infinite" make this mistake too.

It's not possible to prove anything in the world, besides existence. I believe in the domino effect, though, because it is the way things seem to work. I hit a cue ball and it moves to the other balls, making them scatter. Perhaps you'd say that that is not what's actually happening, though?

I'd rather not get into quantum mechanics, which you seem to be into, because (1) I don't understand it at all, and (2) I think it's bull. Cause and effect definitely seems to be true to me.

[Jason]

It's not possible to prove anything in the world, besides existence.

I'm not sure why you underlined "prove", is it just for emphasis, or are you suggesting that there is something other than proof that can make philosophical ideas valid/true?

I believe in the domino effect, though, because it is the way things seem to work.

So you aren't certain that the domino effect is absolutely certain, you just believe it is because it seems to be? Is that what you're saying? You're content to advance your philosophy based on uncertainties?

I hit a cue ball and it moves to the other balls, making them scatter. Perhaps you'd say that that is not what's actually happening, though?

How do you know that it wasn't a perfectly timed gust of wind that moved the ball as opposed to the impact of the cue stick?

I'd rather not get into quantum mechanics, which you seem to be into, because (1) I don't understand it at all, and (2) I think it's bull.

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics as my "gust of wind" example shows.

[bert]

bert wrote:

is that unpoetic enough?

Hm. Maybe, maybe not. First question:

all thoughts are presupposed from other suppositions that have reality in a differential of Reality:otherwise there would be an irreflexive unalterable zero plus zero.

Why "zero plus zero" and not just "zero"?

they refer to both arguments in line ,at hand.If one has no aptitude for the matter at hand,how can there be synchronicity.
Diverse knowledge is not necessary,but aptitude for it is.

[sschaula]

The Devil's advocate...ahem...I mean Jason...wrote:

I'm not sure why you underlined "prove", is it just for emphasis, or are you suggesting that there is something other than proof that can make philosophical ideas valid/true?

Emphasis. Something is only proven if it's undeniable. You can deny everything in this world. You can deny gravity!

Yet, when you drop an apple from up high, it'll still fall. There seems to be gravity, whatever it is, so I believe in it.

So you aren't certain that the domino effect is absolutely certain, you just believe it is because it seems to be? Is that what you're saying? You're content to advance your philosophy based on uncertainties?

I don't comprimise truth for the advancement of my philosophy. I'm uncertain of how the world works. Show me someone who IS certain!

How do you know that it wasn't a perfectly timed gust of wind that moved the ball as opposed to the impact of the cue stick?

Because it happens over and over.

You can deny everything in this world, which is why I say you can't prove anything in this world. But you CAN prove things "out of this world"....absolute truth.

In the old days, science was part of philosophy. Philosophy was the study of all of reality...which of course included the stars, the sky, the trees, the seas... When constricted into the form of pure logic, philosophy can't have anything to do with science because of its uncertainty. Philosophy in this constricted form can only prove absolute truth.

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics as my "gust of wind" example shows.

Well, what are you talking about you tricky bastard? You think gusts of wind appear everytime something moves? Where does your gust of wind come from...what causes it? Things don't just APPEAR from nothing, they only seem to.

[Beingof1]

cosmic_prostitute:

Me: I am everything


Cosmic: Woah there tiger, I don’t know about this one. This is a nasty statement.
Who’s this “I” that thinks he’s everything?
Because I have no knowledge of what I am.
To be everything you would need to be able to perceive every inch of the universe in one single moment.

SSchaula described the understanding in a much better way than I did.

If you believe there is more to the universe than your perception, perhaps you could point out where they lap over?
In other words; could you describe where the Totality begins and your perception ends?

It is like believing in the boundaries of nations, they only exist in a conceptual frame of reference. There is no boundary between you and everything.

There is no universe outside of your perception, that is, you can only experience your own reality and there is no other - you are it.

I’m a skeptical of the psychological motive behind the statement: “I know I’m everything” it seems rather silly and irrational to my mind. Seems like an ego using the imagination see derive self-esteem.

It is not silly to understand there is nothing beyond what you experience. That is all there ever has been or will be. It is irrefutable and is beyond reduction. Your experience is all you will ever know or that can be known.

Learn to appreciate the only reality that you can possibly know.

Leyla Shen:

I am continually learning that there are still way too many people who think they know what they are saying when they actually don’t.

Well there ya go. Was there a particular word or phrase I used that caused this opinion?

Me: I can only teach what you learn and you can only teach what I learn.

(2) That is not what I was saying at all.


Leyla: Then you are not a very good teacher.

Edit: Heh. Yet, you had the balls -- somehow -- to try to pull this off:

It is obvious that my statement "I can only teach what you learn and you can only teach what I learn" is demonstrating itself with clarity.

Could you be more specific about the contradiction you are alluding to? I am unable to see it. I do not see what I was trying to "pull off".

Perhaps I am not a very good teacher. Could you show me how to improve?

R. Steven Coyle:

I just awoke from another Universe [the dream state], and found this thread, and your words in particular, an immediate synchronistic aide. Thank you (?) for your being.

Being gives the sign of Vulcan "Live long and prosper".

Have you given any thought to the idea of the Universe as a hologram? "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot is an excellent read.

I have read David Bohm and I believe it is a very close concept to the reality that we experience. It leaves some questions unanswered however.

Such as; Who is it observing the universe?