the horned rabbit & the furry turtle

[Leah]

Reason is a wonderfully beautiful thing, an immensely powerful tool, that can lead you, if you are very, very skilled in the practice of it, to here:

"The horned rabbit and the furry turtle cross to nowhere mountain."

This is a description of a zenith reached via reasoning, spoken by 16th Century Japanese Zen Master, Hakuin Ekaku. It is to where the One and the Many return, beyond which, reason can only lead back to the One and the Many, for it is naught but a detail of the One and the Many, a facet of the Whole.

To claim to have followed reasoning through to total self-realization is to have not followed reasoning to its very end, and discovered its limitation. Many play with reason and glimpse its potential, but then switch off in order to worship it, rather than practicing it to its completion. If they had done so, they would love reason more, for it is utterly beautiful and tremendously accessible as it is, with its limitations, without needing to be the Key to Everything.

The practice of reason requires the reasoner, and so it's faculty is effective only to the point where self can reach. There is a point beyond which the individual self is left at the gate, and reasoning can lead to here but not beyond. This is where the worth of reason lies, and it is golden in this respect.

Using reasoning in attempting to explain existence is like trying to use mathematics to explain poetry.

Existence is bound by nothing, not reason, not logic, not even unboundedness, how could it be of infinite potential if it were?

[Steven Coyle]

Hey, you just read my causal mind.

WWW :-)

Within the absolute, is the relative, the very nature of the Self.

[David Quinn]

Leah wrote:

The practice of reason requires the reasoner, and so it's faculty is effective only to the point where self can reach.

The practice of reasoning doesn't require a reasoner; it only requires machinary capable of generating reason. One day computers will be able to reason.

Since, fundamentally, we all lack selves to begin with, we are machines that engage in reasoning in the absence of a reasoner.

There is a point beyond which the individual self is left at the gate, and reasoning can lead to here but not beyond. This is where the worth of reason lies, and it is golden in this respect.

Reason can tell you that there is no individual self, nor is there a gate, nor anything beyond - by which time you have already crossed the gate and gone beyond.

Using reasoning in attempting to explain existence is like trying to use mathematics to explain poetry.

That is true. But reason can point the mind's attention to the nature of existence (which is different from explaining it), and it can also dissolve all the false, non-existent philosophical problems that most people unwittingly create and lose themselves in.

Existence is bound by nothing, not reason, not logic, not even unboundedness, how could it be of infinite potential if it were?

Even though existence is boundless, its fundamental nature can still be pointed to by skillful reasoning - just as you are attempting to do here.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Leah wrote:

The practice of reason requires the reasoner, and so it's faculty is effective only to the point where self can reach.

The practice of reasoning doesn't require a reasoner; it only requires machinary capable of generating reason. One day computers will be able to reason.

Since, fundamentally, we all lack selves to begin with, we are machines that engage in reasoning in the absence of a reasoner.

Well, if there's reasoning we can always define a reasoner to go with it. But even if a reasoner is necessary, it doesn't follow that the subject of the reasoning is tied to the reasoner. The subject of a book isn't necessarily about the author.

[David Quinn]

Matt wrote:

Well, if there's reasoning we can always define a reasoner to go with it.

Does this mean that if there is raining, there is also a rainer?

-

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, I think so. The clouds. It's just not that useful of an idea, so we don't normally use it. But we could if we wanted to, like if someone wanted to know which cloud a specific raindrop came from, he could ask, "Which cloud is the rainer of this raindrop?"

[David Quinn]

Okay, we can say that a reasoner reasons in the same way that a cloud rains.

-

[Pye]

.

David writes in response to Leah:

But reason can point the mind's attention to the nature of existence (which is different from explaining it)

Reason is the explanation; and pointing, a step back from that -- and neither are the experience of grasping the ungraspable. And this "but" you provide is also taking a step back from where both Leah and Hakuin are going with this. Pointing or explaining are not experiencing an understanding of this except for the experience of the pointing and explaining; this closed circuit of the reasoner reasoning and the rainer raining.

It is this exact flavour from the "Four Ways of . . .." thread excerpt of Hakuin's I would have asked you [David] about going unremarked, too.

The practice of reasoning doesn't require a reasoner; it only requires machinary capable of generating reason. One day computers will be able to reason.

. . . then they will be just as finite as we are in grasping at an explanation of the infinite.


.

[Sapius]

David wrote:

Since, fundamentally, we all lack selves to begin with, we are machines that engage in reasoning in the absence of a reasoner.

So is it logical to say that it rains in the absence of a cloud? Isn’t the “machine” the reasoner?

Matt: Well, if there's reasoning we can always define a reasoner to go with it.

David: Does this mean that if there is raining, there is also a rainer?

I cannot believe this coming from you, David.

Matt: Yeah, I think so. The clouds. It's just not that useful of an idea, …

David: Okay, we can say that a reasoner reasons in the same way that a cloud rains.

If that were true, then one cannot hold anyone responsible for his or her individual reasoning.

So no, a reasoner does not reason in the same way that a cloud rains, they are two different things; saying otherwise would be deviating from A=A.

Leah: There is a point beyond which the individual self is left at the gate, and reasoning can lead to here but not beyond. This is where the worth of reason lies, and it is golden in this respect.

David: Reason can tell you that there is no individual self, nor is there a gate, nor anything beyond - by which time you have already crossed the gate and gone beyond.

So how many do you know that have crossed the gate and gone beyond from just reasoning that there is ‘no individual self’? I’m sure that there are many here who actually believe that earnestly. Are you saying that reasoning is all that is needed to cross the gate?

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

I’m sure that there are many here who actually believe that earnestly.

I think it's more like they chant it over and over again, eyes squinted tightly shut, whilst clicking their ruby red slippers and waiting to wake up back in Kansas: "I do not exist, I do not exist, I do not exist..."

Part of reasoning properly means that you weed out delusion. No-one can do this part for anyone else---it's truly flying solo.

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think it's more like they chant it over and over again, eyes squinted tightly shut, whilst clicking their ruby red slippers and waiting to wake up back in Kansas: "I do not exist, I do not exist, I do not exist..."

Although you meant this sarcastically, there is some insight there that you have overlooked. Much of humanity is living in the land of Oz, which was just Dorothy's unconcious dreaming after she was knocked unconcious during a tornado. The land of Oz was bright and full of color - far more realistic seeming than the black-and-white of reality. Ultimate Reality is quite dull in comparison to the unconcious dream, which is why so many people do not even want to wake up. Oz is full of things that are far more wonderous and far more treacherous than Kansas - and in order to get to the real world, one may learn how to get there by leaving the lovely lollipop land (or whatever it was called), stay on the yellow brick road, not get sidetracked by Emerald City when you are almost to your goal, and deal with the wizard who will try to put you through unnecessary dangerous trials. You must realize that the wizard (or sage) is essentially no different from who you are, he just happens to know a little something that most people don't. This is how most people consider the only way to get Home, and it is the path that Kevin referred to as crossing the river twice (although I imagine he meant 3 times, as crossing it twice would only get one back on the same side of the river).

The other way is to cross the river once, but that would require that you are wise enough to know that you already had what you needed to get directly where you are going from the begining, and you must know how to use what you have. If you go that way, it can seem as magical as those ruby red slippers in the dream, but they are just mundane shoes in Reality (Kansas).
.

[Matt Gregory]

David: Okay, we can say that a reasoner reasons in the same way that a cloud rains.

Sapius: If that were true, then one cannot hold anyone responsible for his or her individual reasoning.

Sure we can, in the same way that we can hold a cloud responsible for raining.

Sapius: So no, a reasoner does not reason in the same way that a cloud rains, they are two different things; saying otherwise would be deviating from A=A.

By "same way" I'm pretty sure he means "caused".

Leah: There is a point beyond which the individual self is left at the gate, and reasoning can lead to here but not beyond. This is where the worth of reason lies, and it is golden in this respect.

David: Reason can tell you that there is no individual self, nor is there a gate, nor anything beyond - by which time you have already crossed the gate and gone beyond.

Sapius: So how many do you know that have crossed the gate and gone beyond from just reasoning that there is ‘no individual self’? I’m sure that there are many here who actually believe that earnestly. Are you saying that reasoning is all that is needed to cross the gate?

Reasoning that there is no individual self involves a lot more than just the one single argument that there is no individual self. Same goes for the other arguments he mentioned. They are merely the peaks of mountains.

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

DQ: But reason can point the mind's attention to the nature of existence (which is different from explaining it)

Pye: Reason is the explanation; and pointing, a step back from that -- and neither are the experience of grasping the ungraspable. And this "but" you provide is also taking a step back from where both Leah and Hakuin are going with this.

Leah and Hakuin are engaging in the same amount of pointing as I am. That is the primary function of language. That is what the scriptures and wise teachings are for - to point people's minds to the nature of Reality.

Pointing or explaining are not experiencing an understanding of this except for the experience of the pointing and explaining; this closed circuit of the reasoner reasoning and the rainer raining.

That is true. At the same, experiencing the nature of Reality cannot occur without the mind being pointed to it in the first place - either by someone else's words, or by one's own reasonings.

The usual process is that a sage becomes enlightened with the help of some pointing, and then, knowing the destination himself, he can help point others towards reaching it.

It is this exact flavour from the "Four Ways of . . .." thread excerpt of Hakuin's I would have asked you [David] about going unremarked, too.

You wanted me to remark on Hakuin's method of pointing?

DQ: The practice of reasoning doesn't require a reasoner; it only requires machinary capable of generating reason. One day computers will be able to reason.

Pye: . . . then they will be just as finite as we are in grasping at an explanation of the infinite.

If they are wise enough, they will be able to grasp, just like we can, that the Infinite is timeless and therefore beyond explanation.

-

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

DQ: Since, fundamentally, we all lack selves to begin with, we are machines that engage in reasoning in the absence of a reasoner.

S: So is it logical to say that it rains in the absence of a cloud? Isn’t the “machine” the reasoner?

A reasoning machine reasons in the same causally-automatic manner that a rain-filled cloud rains. Because it cannot do anything other.

The machine is needed for reason to occur, just as the cloud is needed for rain to occur. But neither of them can be classified as sufficient causes. They are necessary causes, but not sufficient ones.

Indeed, nothing within the Totality can ever constitute a sufficient cause of something else. An event can only ever be a necessary cause at best, never a sufficient one.

Matt: Well, if there's reasoning we can always define a reasoner to go with it.

David: Does this mean that if there is raining, there is also a rainer?

Sapius: I cannot believe this coming from you, David.

What about when rain is dropping out of the sky? Is there a dropper? Or when snow is floating downwards, is there a floater?

Matt: Yeah, I think so. The clouds. It's just not that useful of an idea, …

David: Okay, we can say that a reasoner reasons in the same way that a cloud rains.

Sapius: If that were true, then one cannot hold anyone responsible for his or her individual reasoning.

That is true. Fundamentally, we are all innocent and blameless.

Leah: There is a point beyond which the individual self is left at the gate, and reasoning can lead to here but not beyond. This is where the worth of reason lies, and it is golden in this respect.

David: Reason can tell you that there is no individual self, nor is there a gate, nor anything beyond - by which time you have already crossed the gate and gone beyond.

Sapius: So how many do you know that have crossed the gate and gone beyond from just reasoning that there is ‘no individual self’? I’m sure that there are many here who actually believe that earnestly.

Let me put it this way. If a person is not fully aware, with perfect clarity, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he has crossed the threshold and resolved utterly everything in his mind, then we may take it as a given that he hasn't.

Are you saying that reasoning is all that is needed to cross the gate?

Reasoning + courage + single-mindedness + hunger for ultimate understanding.

-

[Pye]

.

David writes:

You wanted me to remark on Hakuin's method of pointing?

no, no, you answered it here:

Pye: Pointing or explaining are not experiencing an understanding of this except for the experience of the pointing and explaining; this closed circuit of the reasoner reasoning and the rainer raining.

David: That is true. At the same, experiencing the nature of Reality cannot occur without the mind being pointed to it in the first place - either by someone else's words, or by one's own reasonings.

again, the experience rests at an apex above reasoning, even if reasoning is necessary to get there.


.

[Sapius]

David wrote:

A reasoning machine reasons in the same causally-automatic manner that a rain-filled cloud rains. Because it cannot do anything other.

The machine is needed for reason to occur, just as the cloud is needed for rain to occur.

Sure, so in other words there is a reasoner after all. You can call him/her a machine in the fundamental sense if you like, but that does not change the definable characteristics of how ‘reasoning’ and ‘rain’ come about differently.

But neither of them can be classified as sufficient causes. They are necessary causes, but not sufficient ones.

Indeed, nothing within the Totality can ever constitute a sufficient cause of something else. An event can only ever be a necessary cause at best, never a sufficient one.

Sure, but that is besides the point being made about the necessity to recognize the fact that a reasoner (a machine that reasons, if you like) is necessary if reasoning is to occur. So to say that ‘fundamentally’ there is no self to begin with, does not change the fact of the “un-fundamental” world so to speak, and that world is a fact too.

What about when rain is dropping out of the sky? Is there a dropper? Or when snow is floating downwards, is there a floater?

If you look up and rain seems to drop out of a clear sky, then most probably the only cloud has already rained away by the time you looked up. (Are you really serious with that question?).

As Matt mentioned, yes there is, it depends on your definitions. So it is the cloud and the wind, and that is how I would answer a child who is stupid enough to question it in that manner.

Matt: Yeah, I think so. The clouds. It's just not that useful of an idea, …

David: Okay, we can say that a reasoner reasons in the same way that a cloud rains.

Sapius: If that were true, then one cannot hold anyone responsible for his or her individual reasoning.

David: That is true. Fundamentally, we are all innocent and blameless.

No, if you speak in the fundamental sense, then no attribute applies, neither responsible nor blameless. One cannot make any judgments based on fundamentality, so basically that can take a back seat so to speak, when defining a reasoner and a cloud. A reasoner is as responsible for reasoning as a cloud is for rain, if you are talking about them. Fundamentally, operating causally does not change that fact.

Let me put it this way. If a person is not fully aware, with perfect clarity, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he has crossed the threshold and resolved utterly everything in his mind, then we may take it as a given that he hasn't.

Which of course, you as an individual, will never really know about another.

Sapius: Are you saying that reasoning is all that is needed to cross the gate?

David: Reasoning + courage + single-mindedness + hunger for ultimate understanding.

In other words strong emotional passion to back all that up.

[Cory Duchesne]

David and Sapius,

David: A reasoning machine reasons in the same causally-automatic manner that a rain-filled cloud rains. Because it cannot do anything other. The machine is needed for reason to occur, just as the cloud is needed for rain to occur.

Sapius: Sure, so in other words there is a reasoner after all. You can call him/her a machine in the fundamental sense if you like, but that does not change the definable characteristics of how ‘reasoning’ and ‘rain’ come about differently.

What is a cloud? Imagine flying up close to it, to examine. I think you will find that the cloud is the very rain that merely appears to be an effect of the cloud. A cloud is the very water that rains down. The cause is the effect. The division we are creating between the rain and the cloud, between cause and effect is ultimately unreal. When the water falls back down to earth, we are not correct to say that the cloud is causing that to happen.

[Leyla Shen]

David wrote:

What about when rain is dropping out of the sky? Is there a dropper?

We don't commonly label the dropper as a dropper in this instance. It's not really useful for us to consider it so (outside of linguistics and philosophy). Same with birds and bird shit despite the fact that whilst the bird is a bird and not a dropper, there can be droppings and not rainings on one's head or the ground.

.

[David Quinn]

Leyla,

DQ: What about when rain is dropping out of the sky? Is there a dropper?

L: We don't commonly label the dropper as a dropper in this instance. It's not really useful for us to consider it so (outside of linguistics and philosophy).

Exactly right. So a term like "reasoner" is just a useful fiction and nothing more. It has no more reality than a "dropper" or "floater" does, but it does, in some circumstances, serve a more useful purpose.

Same with birds and bird shit despite the fact that whilst the bird is a bird and not a dropper, there can be droppings and not rainings on one's head or the ground.

If every action had to have an actor attached to it, the world would become a very crowded place! Not only would shitting require a shitter, but the act of shit falling down in the sky would require a faller; the act of slowing down from air resistence would require a slower; the act of thumping into someone's head would require a thumper; the act of discomfit experienced by that person would require a discomfitter; the smell emanating from the thumped shit would need an emanator or a smeller; the act of tripping over from the shock would require a tripper .......

We would basically have to duplicate the entire world just to fit in all these extra agents.

-

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

What is a cloud? Imagine flying up close to it, to examine. I think you will find that the cloud is the very rain that merely appears to be an effect of the cloud. A cloud is the very water that rains down. The cause is the effect. The division we are creating between the rain and the cloud, between cause and effect is ultimately unreal. When the water falls back down to earth, we are not correct to say that the cloud is causing that to happen.

While I appreciate that you are attempting to point to the unity of cloud and rain here, to cause and effect, we need to keep in mind that the mere existence of a rain-filled cloud isn't enough to guarantee rain. For example, a sudden rise in temperature and strong winds could disperse the cloud before it has a chance to turn into rain.

This points to the truth that there is really no such thing as a "rainer", or an agent which is solely responsible for the rain. For rain to occur, not only does a rain-filled cloud need to be present, but many other casual circumstances need to be in place as well. There are countless other factors which come into play, and the rain is as much a product of these other factors as it is of the cloud itself.

The same principle applies to every other event in the Universe. I like this passage from Kevin Solway's book, Poison for the Heart:

-

Childhood memories

As a child my father said to me "It was I who brought you into this world." This got me thinking. Was I going to owe my life to another for evermore? My intuition suggested my father was in error. So where did I really come from? This question occupied my mind for years.

To begin with, my mother was certainly as responsible for my existence as my father was, so he wasn't my sole creator. Yet did my parents make me at all? Were they instead merely vehicles for my genes? The latter is surely true. So, I was made by genes then, which come from beginningless time, and are not made by parents. Then is my body simply made by genetic material? Not at all, it is made out of transformed food, and my parents did not create the food either!

Then I knew where my body came from, but was I my body anyway? Is not the essential "me" my personality? Then where did this personality come from? Certainly, my parents had some input, but there were millions of other inputs. And even the input from my parents was not theirs to give, but was channelled through them.

My conclusion then: parents do not make a child, neither body nor mind - we are truly Children of God.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

While I appreciate that you are attempting to point to the unity of cloud and rain here, to cause and effect, we need to keep in mind that the mere existence of a rain-filled cloud isn't enough to guarantee rain.

Yes, and similarly, we can likewise say that just because there is a pond of water in front of us, doesn't mean that the pond is going to freeze over or dry up. And if the the pond were to freeze over? Would the pond then be the freezer? And so likewise, is the cloud the rainer? Of course not.

a sudden rise in temperature and strong winds could disperse the cloud before it has a chance to turn into rain.

Yes, that's right. And let's not also forget to consider how moisture got up in the sky to begin with. The sun is a factor to consider as well.

Overall, I think the point we are trying to make is that there is indeed no 'thinker' who causes the thinking, or rainer that caues the raining. The noun is a practical illusion. I think that often, people are attatched to believing literaly in nouns, in things, because they are attatched to priding and shaming themselves and others.

And finally, the problem with asserting that the concept of cause & effect is illusionary is that people who are attatched to magical ideas want to exploit such a truth in order to justify silly living.

Thinking in terms of cause and effect is vital, one needs to push it to greater and greater limits, for it is only by pushing cause and effect as far as it can go, that you truly come to see cause and effect as a fiction.

[Nordicvs]

Thinking in terms of cause and effect is vital, one needs to push it to greater and greater limits,

Why would you do that?

for it is only by pushing cause and effect as far as it can go, that you truly come to see cause and effect as a fiction.

Do you mean a first cause? If not, I don't see how you can even come close to dismissing the fact of cause and effect.

[Cory Duchesne]

Nordicvs,

Cory: Thinking in terms of cause and effect is vital, one needs to push it to greater and greater limits,

Nord: Why would you do that?

Do you mean, why would I think in terms of cause and effect, or why would I push my conceptions of causality to greater and greater limits?

Regardless of what you meant, either/or, the answer is the same, because I value clarity, truth.

Cory: for it is only by pushing cause and effect as far as it can go, that you truly come to see cause and effect as a fiction.

Nord: Do you mean a first cause? If not, I don't see how you can even come close to dismissing the fact of cause and effect.

There is certainly no begining, although I wasn't getting at that in particular.

What I meant was that the concept of cause and effect depends on there being one particular thing, divided from, and causing another particular thing. The division between 2 phenomenon is ultimatley false. So in that sense, the cause is the effect.

It's like a master and a slave.

The master is his slave, or the husband is his wife, in the sense that 2 wheels of a bicycle are a part of the same bike.

[Nordicvs]

Nordicvs,

Do you mean, why would I think in terms of cause and effect, or why would I push my conceptions of causality to greater and greater limits?

Regardless of what you meant, either/or, the answer is the same, because I value clarity, truth.

Okay. How do you "push the conception of cause and effect?" I mean, isn't that pretty much it...two things: 1. Cause. 2. Effect? What else is there to it?

There is certainly no begining, although I wasn't getting at that in particular.

What I meant was that the concept of cause and effect depends on there being one particular thing, divided from, and causing another particular thing. The division between 2 phenomenon is ultimatley false. So in that sense, the cause is the effect.

It's like a master and a slave.

The master is his slave, or the husband is his wife, in the sense that 2 wheels of a bicycle are a part of the same bike.

Then what was going on before the Big Bang? Or, if you're not into that stuff, what came before God?

[Cory Duchesne]

Okay. How do you "push the conception of cause and effect?" I mean, isn't that pretty much it...two things: 1. Cause. 2. Effect? What else is there to it?

Yes, but we need to apply this very simple and useful concept to the actual world. The result of applying the concept results in a conception. A person’s causal conception of events is usually too simple, and this results in all sorts of problems (rainforests are wiped out, our sewage is emptied into harbors, lakes and oceans, holes form in the ozone layer, we find ourselves faced with super-breeds of pests, we have drug addictions. To the degree that we acknowledge our mistakes, we tend to acknowledge more advanced conceptions of causality. Eventually, if we have pushed our minds far enough, a tree no longer becomes regarded as caused by light, gases, water, minerals, cations, anions - -- A tree is light, gases, water, minerals, cations, anions, etc. But what are all of those things? You'll find that each thing, when examined closely, is everything else. And what is everything? What is the totality?

The totality is formless, beyond time, and without cause.

What was going on before the Big Bang? Or, if you're not into that stuff, what came before God?

What came before the seed that created the apple? When you realize the answer you will realize that there is no significant difference between the beginning and the end. The seed is both the end of the product and the beginning of the product.

I'm guessing the universe is like a fruit among many fruits growing on a tree among many.