Certainty

[bert]

we have lost or forgotten Heaven's imperative significance because we overstep our real needs and go about the world mouthing schools of thought of salvation like beguilers and mountebanks with nostrums and elixirs.

[samadhi]

I know you are talking about the different kinds of certainty, but unless I don’t ask for clarifications of what I think are your assumptions, I cannot reach the point of discussing the “kinds” of certainties. I might not see a certain paradox as a paradox, which you readily accept it as so. So, the direction I would take is to question from the basics, including asking your definition of the Tao or emptiness, which you assume that I should know and accept it as you do.

It isn't that I am asking you to accept my definition, in fact just the opposite, I am asking for your definition. My mention of semantics was an attempt to preempt the question of whether I am certain of being uncertain. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word, semantics. Recursion I guess is what I wanted to avoid.

Thinking about it now, I needn't have avoided the recursion question at all. Being certain of being uncertain is perfectly okay. Certainty is a state of mind applied to ideas. Applying it to itself or its opposite doesn't undo it or render it nonsensical. I do think however that using certainty on matters of opinion is problematic. Can any opinion be certain? One can be certain of holding the opinion but that to which the opinion applies will always remain an opinion.

Just to restate, my idea is that applying certainty to emptiness misses the point of what emptiness is about. An enlightened "state" is not a matter of certainty as we use that term. The empty "state" does not deal in certainties. Being certain that one has found "it" is a good indication that one hasn't.

[daybrown]

Daybrown, I have looked into your site earlier too; I see much effort has been put into it. Quite a few interesting info all in one place.

Well thanx Sapius. I've been collecting it for a damn long time. Been online ever since the early 80's when modems got up to 2.4kbps and under 200$. There's been lotsa stuff posted you'd never see in print cause it didnt suck up to anyone and didnt mind offending sensibilities. All it hadda do was be rational enuf to stand being carefully parsed out on screens like this.

I still clearly remember back in the mid 80's on a BBS forum looking at how some ranter had his words from some previous post some months before dragged up and thrown back at him. Rite then I realized the paradox of words merely written in glowing phosphor on this screen can be endlessly copied and outlast that carved in stone. I've been more careful.

Then too, dunno how many times certainty was challenged by ideas that others presented, sometimes in other cultures, or found in ancient sources that never had a power structure pushing them. Everywhere else, hominids are limited by group think, but here, there is this glass wall protecting us from the flaming. You cant be shouted down either.

But neither can I prevent anyone cutting and pasting whatever they want from http://daybrown.org ; however, one advantage of the ANZI format is that they havta know how to use a graphic tool. HTML wont cut it. Because of the font, OCR dont work either. Then too, since I upload this to a satellite from my dish, I know that some of the signal goes rite past the satellite into outer space, and may be picked up at any time in the future, light years away, and decoded. Its like a time capsule.

I've seen a couple places where Roman writers, who knew they were reading the words of Greeks who'd lived hundreds of years before them, realized that their own words mite be read by others hundreds of years after them. It gives me pause.

[Sapius]

Just to restate, my idea is that applying certainty to emptiness misses the point of what emptiness is about. An enlightened "state" is not a matter of certainty as we use that term. The empty "state" does not deal in certainties. Being certain that one has found "it" is a good indication that one hasn't.

I don’t know about someone else’s certainty, but one on one with YOU, (considering what I think I know of you), I can tell you with all certainty; ultimately there’s nothing to find.

Which I can also state as; I have found that there was nothing to be found in the first place; and that I am absolutely certain about that.

You can call this a “state” of whatever kind you like, but it is by no means or in any sense ‘empty’ at all; all that there is, is fullness; for me at least. All is absolutely real; with no room for anything unreal, which actually is an impossibility.

[Sapius]

I've seen a couple places where Roman writers, who knew they were reading the words of Greeks who'd lived hundreds of years before them, realized that their own words mite be read by others hundreds of years after them. It gives me pause.

Of course; knowledge if not shared or passed on, will create reoccurring pitfalls for humanity; just as ancient knowledge that got either lost or buried in time lead to the dark ages [of the mind]. There is much to be found beyond the smoke and fire of ancient texts, for there is always a spark of truth hidden under it all. All that needs be done is have the focus and strength to walk through the smoke and fire, and get hold of the spark hidden within.

[sagerage]

I feel sooooooo special, tks for paying att. and helping me out! yay! go girls!!!!!!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Samadhi! Hope you don't mind me butting in.

David,

That’s a nice try, but you’re bumping against the limitations of your own generic mentality here.

First comment, a putdown. Yeaaaaaaa!

He's surprisingly gallant with you actually - it's only a putdown from a certain perspective where you shouldn't find yourself in. This forum really has mellowed a lot :)

Logic is about the mind and functions within it.

What would you assert is not about the mind and its functioning in our experiences?

Trying to use logic to go beyond the mind is like trying to use a spaceship to go beyond space.

The spaceship represents science and might tell a lot about the inherent limitations of space, ship as well as the science. For a species so inclined toward conquest and exploration it appears the only way forward.

Am I wrong in saying that you insist logic is the means to enlightenment?

Logic is the means to every form of consciousness one could claim to experience. The only alternative is unconsciousness. In the end the water just runs downhill whatever is being insisted upon.

]Hmm. "A=A" is no different than "A", or "I am." "I am" isn't logic as that term is commonly understood. If you insist on calling it logic, then I would say you have a need to appear logical, which is about your image, not about logic.

Generally it's called meta-logic or in this specific case the law of identity. It's perfectly logical in all worlds: formal, academic, scientific, philosophical or just free thinking. Even within the interpretations of quantum mechanics: the proverbial undeniable.

Your teaching is about logic and certainty.

Because that is and always has been as the core of all teaching. It must be that way because our use of logic and certainty lies at the base of all our particular delusions, as well as all forms of knowing.

The problem is attaching "I am" to "this" or "that." And even that is problematic only when suffering arises.

Actually that forms the roots of the suffering, and the experience of any specific existence.

Remember, the tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. What can't be known is what is eternal.

So there must be some kind of temporary tao as well? Think carefully about those subtle lines. There's way more to them than usually is assumed - a neck breaking twist.

And yet that "not knowing" seems to be what distinguishes the sage and his ease. That is a paradox since everyone else seeks more knowledge to arrive at peace, not less.

Releasing the old would be just a start, not the arrival of any journey. New wine in new wineskins. The mountain becomes mountain again but the path is still long and winding from here.

True paradox is not about what the mind can reason out, it is the use of contradiction to point to a higher truth. For instance, the Tao is about paradox, is it not?

A paradox means most generally a seemingly contradictory statement which upon close examining is just plain true. It's not some magical contradiction we have to believe in or surrender to.

Pure paradox.

Those verses you quoted seem very logical and sensible to me, without any contradiction whatsoever.

The reality will always appears as paradox within duality. You cannot express non-duality without paradox. That's why koans use it.

I get the feeling your concept of non-dualism is still caught in a subtle but immense dualism. All expressions are more or less paradoxical within duality. The koans are just highlighting and clarifying the general describing we do - but perhaps more purposeful.

First, your certainty about my certainty.

You've got to learn to stop avoiding the certainties implied with everything we express. It's a form of being disingenuous which any compassionate fellow being cannot help but to address without desiring any insult to injury.

[samadhi]

Sapius,

Just to restate, my idea is that applying certainty to emptiness misses the point of what emptiness is about. An enlightened "state" is not a matter of certainty as we use that term. The empty "state" does not deal in certainties. Being certain that one has found "it" is a good indication that one hasn't.

I don’t know about someone else's certainty, but one on one with YOU, (considering what I think I know of you), I can tell you with all certainty; ultimately there's nothing to find.

Right, emptiness deals in paradox, as I said. You are looking for what can't be found.

Which I can also state as; I have found that there was nothing to be found in the first place; and that I am absolutely certain about that.

Yes, the mind is certain of its truths.

You can call this a "state" of whatever kind you like, but it is by no means or in any sense ‘empty’ at all; all that there is, is fullness; for me at least. All is absolutely real; with no room for anything unreal, which actually is an impossibility.

Nothing / everything is the paradox. I think you see what I was pointing to.

[Sapius]

Right, emptiness deals in paradox, as I said. You are looking for what can't be found.

Tell me… what exactly am I looking for? And what the hell is ‘emptiness’?

Sap: Which I can also state as; I have found that there was nothing to be found in the first place; and that I am absolutely certain about that.

Sam: Yes, the mind is certain of its truths.

You are not paying attention. I said I am certain.

Nothing / everything is the paradox. I think you see what I was pointing to.

Not really… can you show me how that is a paradox?

[samadhi]

Diebert,

Hello Samadhi! Hope you don't mind me butting in.

Not at all. Good to make your acquaintance!

me: That's a nice try, but you’re bumping against the limitations of your own generic mentality here. First comment, a putdown. Yeaaaaaaa!

you: He's surprisingly gallant with you actually - it's only a putdown from a certain perspective where you shouldn't find yourself in. This forum really has mellowed a lot :)

Okay. I don't take it personally. David has his style and I am aware of it.

me: Logic is about the mind and functions within it.

you: What would you assert is not about the mind and its functioning in our experiences?

Emptiness is not about the mind.

me: Trying to use logic to go beyond the mind is like trying to use a spaceship to go beyond space.

you: The spaceship represents science and might tell a lot about the inherent limitations of space, ship as well as the science. For a species so inclined toward conquest and exploration it appears the only way forward.

It was a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is?

me: Am I wrong in saying that you insist logic is the means to enlightenment?

you: Logic is the means to every form of consciousness one could claim to experience. The only alternative is unconsciousness. In the end the water just runs downhill whatever is being insisted upon.

Really? What does logic have to do with seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting or smelling? Are they not forms of consciousness?

me: Hmm. "A=A" is no different than "A", or "I am." "I am" isn't logic as that term is commonly understood. If you insist on calling it logic, then I would say you have a need to appear logical, which is about your image, not about logic.

you: Generally it's called meta-logic or in this specific case the law of identity. It's perfectly logical in all worlds: formal, academic, scientific, philosophical or just free thinking. Even within the interpretations of quantum mechanics: the proverbial undeniable.

Maybe we better define our terms before continuing. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

me: Your teaching is about logic and certainty.

you: Because that is and always has been as the core of all teaching. It must be that way because our use of logic and certainty lies at the base of all our particular delusions, as well as all forms of knowing.

It's a single path. Don't mistake your path for everyone else's.

me: Remember, the tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. What can't be known is what is eternal.

you: So there must be some kind of temporary tao as well? Think carefully about those subtle lines. There's way more to them than usually is assumed - a neck breaking twist.

The eternal Tao is non-dual. Anything else you can talk about.

me: And yet that "not knowing" seems to be what distinguishes the sage and his ease. That is a paradox since everyone else seeks more knowledge to arrive at peace, not less.

you: Releasing the old would be just a start, not the arrival of any journey. New wine in new wineskins. The mountain becomes mountain again but the path is still long and winding from here.

The point is the paradox. The sage does not seek to know more.

In pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped. (v.48 Mitchell)

me: True paradox is not about what the mind can reason out, it is the use of contradiction to point to a higher truth. For instance, the Tao is about paradox, is it not?

you: A paradox means most generally a seemingly contradictory statement which upon close examining is just plain true. It's not some magical contradiction we have to believe in or surrender to.

But it is true by reason of paradox.

Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing.
Thus she is truly whole. (v.71 Mitchell)

Equating not-knowing with true knowledge overthrows your beloved "A=A," does it not? It is not to be understood with logic.

Those verses you quoted seem very logical and sensible to me, without any contradiction whatsoever.

Really? How about this:

If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up. (v.22 Mitchell)

me: The reality will always appears as paradox within duality. You cannot express non-duality without paradox. That's why koans use it.

you: I get the feeling your concept of non-dualism is still caught in a subtle but immense dualism. All expressions are more or less paradoxical within duality. The koans are just highlighting and clarifying the general describing we do - but perhaps more purposeful.

See above.

me: First, your certainty about my certainty.

you: You've got to learn to stop avoiding the certainties implied with everything we express. It's a form of being disingenuous which any compassionate fellow being cannot help but to address without desiring any insult to injury.

David addresses my point by bringing up my own certainty. Do you see how that completely misunderstands what I was pointing to?

[samadhi]

Right, emptiness deals in paradox, as I said. You are looking for what can't be found.

Tell me… what exactly am I looking for? And what the hell is ‘emptiness’?

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao. (v.25 Mitchell)

Sap: Which I can also state as; I have found that there was nothing to be found in the first place; and that I am absolutely certain about that.

Sam: Yes, the mind is certain of its truths.

Sap: You are not paying attention. I said I am certain.

I get it, you're certain.

Sam: Nothing / everything is the paradox. I think you see what I was pointing to.

Sap: Not really… can you show me how that is a paradox?

When I look inside, I see that I am nothing
When I look outside I see that I am everything - Nisargadatta

So which are you?

[Ataraxia]

In pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped. (v.48 Mitchell)

This extract seems to summarize your position on this subject.

I can't help wondering if you are taking it too literally.If one was to actually live this- as if it were true- it would be impossible to form an opinion on anything.

Poetically it has resonance; for life from a practical standpoint, it doesn't(in my view)

It's seems to me if one is willing to eschew all reason and logic he leaves himself open to any manner of charlatan or guru who comes along.

I'm not saying this is necessarily true in your case, but I have seen a number of people over the years who have expounded this 'truism' and then be taken in by all manner of nonsense subsequently.

If anihilation of the ego is the goal,this is fine.But if it also comes at the expense of ones ability to reason,or apply logic then this would seem-to me at least-a false path.

[Sapius]

Samadhim;

quotes:

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.

No, “universe” was never born; so ‘was’ or ‘something’, or ‘formless’, or ‘perfect’, is meaningless, unless, you are referring to a period before the big bang, or before God rolled up his sleeves and said, 'let there be light’.

It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.

Change itself is unchangingly, infinitely, eternally present and serene, and is not Empty at all, except through imagining it so.

It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao. (v.25 Mitchell)

So who is the father then? Could I say Bao; the thing-ness (fullness) that emptiness depends on.

When I look inside, I see that I am nothing
When I look outside I see that I am everything - Nisargadatta

Since you live by quoting others to explain yourself, I am compelled to say, Nisargadatta must have been blinded by his guru’s faith and teachings, and I mentioned this to his face, but rather very humbly, in the late seventies (he was quite an angry and disrespectful man when mildly challenged about his realization even very politely); and I also mentioned during one of my several visits then, that I find eternity in me, and eternity outside of me, and without “I” being in between, eternity itself isn’t; which does not in any way mean “I” am “Eternity”, or “Prabhu”, or “Brahman” for that matter, for that is but an egotistical belief ultimately. After which we exchanged smiles, and drank a glass (not a cup) of tea. He must have been in a good mood that day, or simply got bored and wanted to get rid of me. Well, that doesn’t however really matter to me. I must have visited him about eight to ten times over a period of three years, during which I mostly listened and observed, and spoke only when the opportunity arose.

I don’t like talking about where all I have been or for what, but I guess my encounters and thoughts over existence have fueled my curiosity, and have made me what I am; So guess what…

So which are you?

Ghost buster of my own ghosts! :D

[samadhi]

Sapius,

me: There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.

you: No, "universe" was never born; so 'was' or 'something', or 'formless', or 'perfect', is meaningless, unless, you are referring to a period before the big bang, or before God rolled up his sleeves and said, 'let there be light’.

First off, it's bad form to take poetry literally. Fundamentalists like to do that. Second, arguing whether the universe was "born" or not is pointless. However your certainty does tell me more about you than about the universe.

me: It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.

you: Change itself is unchangingly, infinitely, eternally present and serene, and is not Empty at all, except through imagining it so.

Emptiness is not in opposition to duality.

me: It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao. (v.25 Mitchell)

you: So who is the father then? Could I say Bao; the thing-ness (fullness) that emptiness depends on.

Emptiness depends on? Are you sure you want to go there?

me: When I look inside, I see that I am nothing
When I look outside I see that I am everything - Nisargadatta

you: Since you live by quoting others to explain yourself, I am compelled to say, Nisargadatta must have been blinded by his guru’s faith and teachings, and I mentioned this to his face, but rather very humbly, in the late seventies (he was quite an angry and disrespectful man when mildly challenged about his realization even very politely) ...

Interesting. I had heard he was rather cantankerous.

... and I also mentioned during one of my several visits then, that I find eternity in me, and eternity outside of me, and without "I" being in between, eternity itself isn’t; which does not in any way mean "I" am "Eternity", or "Prabhu", or "Brahman" for that matter, for that is but an egotistical belief ultimately. After which we exchanged smiles, and drank a glass (not a cup) of tea. He must have been in a good mood that day, or simply got bored and wanted to get rid of me. Well, that doesn't however really matter to me. I must have visited him about eight to ten times over a period of three years, during which I mostly listened and observed, and spoke only when the opportunity arose.

Wow, I'm impressed!

me: So which are you?

you: Ghost buster of my own ghosts!

More power to you.

[Sapius]

Samadhim;

Emptiness depends on? Are you sure you want to go there?

Not really :)

I'm glad for you though.

All the best :)

[divine focus]

This is from the spoken-word poem "Unity" from Singing the Sacred Yes:

If I am you, and you are me, then let's explore the unity.
The hamony never conceived before.
So-sure-doors closed, now bulldozed by possibility.
My reality reordered by divine order
that transcends, ascends who and what I used to be.
A mere vessel of personality.
Too small to contain, too small to restrain a content infinite to define.
Too magnificent to confine, too perfect to refine,
too precious not to align with the truth of my being.
Now seeing with fresh, new eyes,
the lies no longer capturing my attention,
A new comprehension of a dimension of purity
that opens my heart to our unity.

If I am you, and you are me, then where is the unity?
The responsibility to dare to care for one another.
No cover can camoflauge our connection?!
The detection defies rejection.
No objection could force my defection.
No more dejection of what I KNOW to be true.
You are me, and I am you.
A truth so simply...TRUE, that it escapes our imagination,
Our affirmation, our determination to live like we know what we know.
No more spiritual AMNESIA!
A seizure that has us convulsing with the pulse of the world.
At a beat so steady that it makes us wonder if we are ready
to step to the drummer inside.
Step on! With the rhythm that says that we are marching together
whether fair or foul, sunshine and storms, causation and forms.
We acknowledge each other's existence,
no longer pretending like I don't see you
two inches from me in the elevator,
standing next to me in the grocery line.
No longer acting like what happens to you and your family
bears no reality on my health and well-being.
Now decreeing that our interconnectedness creates a nest in my heart,
that hatches a bond that remains no matter the strains in our relationship.
I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOU TO LOVE YOU?!
AND I AM THE PEOPLE THAT I DON'T LIKE!
And with enough foresight, I'll grow to love the you that's me.
And even if it's hindsight,
it still guides my vision, informs my decision
to stay open and concerned when I've been burned or returned
to somplace I couldn't forgive before.
Yet the doors once closed are bulldozed into possibility.
Reordering my reality with an order so divine
that all I can do is shine.
Remind myself of our unity born out of our divinity
which only needs an opportunity to JUST be.
Be WHAT!?
Be everything.
Especially one..with..you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Emptiness is not about the mind.

The moment anything becomes or seizes to be present to you in any way it will be about the mind and what we perceive as being mind. As Huang Po said: "They do not know that their own mind is the Void."

Really? What does logic have to do with seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting or smelling? Are they not forms of consciousness?

There's a rudimentary logic [as in: reason, contrast, non-contradiction] to all the sensations like object and subject, source and destination, self and other. There's logic to one black dot on a white screen as well. Remove the dot and there's neither consciousness nor logic. Not even emptiness.

you: Because that is and always has been as the core of all teaching. It must be that way because our use of logic and certainty lies at the base of all our particular delusions, as well as all forms of knowing.

It's a single path. Don't mistake your path for everyone else's.

There are preparations, stages and variations. But all humans have brains, degrees of awareness and thoughts. All delusion is related to what happens in the brain and beyond, related to awareness and consciousness. Certainty then could be called a matter of depth of consciousness.

The eternal Tao is non-dual. Anything else you can talk about.

That's just as right as saying: "the temporary Tao is dualistic".

There's no "anything else" but still we talk.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing.
Thus she is truly whole. (v.71 Mitchell)

Equating not-knowing with true knowledge overthrows your beloved "A=A," does it not? It is not to be understood with logic.

Not-knowing only ever means knowing the essential and is a form of superior knowledge which allows for potential greater understandings and possible new pathways. This in opposition to having loads of non-essential knowledge accumulated while missing mastery of the foundation. It's exactly the same with all types of knowledge in all human domains. The bare bones are always the more advanced and difficult to get, so they are skipped. A very limited understanding is now the maximum achievable. From a certain perspective this now appears as 'false knowledge' and presumption.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

me: Emptiness is not about the mind.

you: The moment anything becomes or seizes to be present to you in any way it will be about the mind and what we perceive as being mind. As Huang Po said: "They do not know that their own mind is the Void."

Sure, anything you can think of is about the mind. Emptiness however isn't about thinking. The Huang Po quotes just points to the idea that everything arises out of emptiness.

me: What does logic have to do with seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting or smelling? Are they not forms of consciousness?

you: There's a rudimentary logic [as in: reason, contrast, non-contradiction] to all the sensations like object and subject, source and destination, self and other. There's logic to one black dot on a white screen as well. Remove the dot and there's neither consciousness nor logic. Not even emptiness.

All you are doing is defining logic as everything. If you want to discuss logic as a distinct subject, you have to define it by means of making distinctions. Can we agree on a commonly used definition? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/logic

you: Because that is and always has been as the core of all teaching. It must be that way because our use of logic and certainty lies at the base of all our particular delusions, as well as all forms of knowing.

me: It's a single path. Don't mistake your path for everyone else's.

you: There are preparations, stages and variations. But all humans have brains, degrees of awareness and thoughts. All delusion is related to what happens in the brain and beyond, related to awareness and consciousness. Certainty then could be called a matter of depth of consciousness.

Yes, certainty is a state of mind, that's all I have been saying.

me: The eternal Tao is non-dual. Anything else you can talk about.

you: That's just as right as saying: "the temporary Tao is dualistic".

There's no "anything else" but still we talk.

Again, you want to define everything as Tao. You can do that but the Tao Te Ching is pointing to something specific. This is what I am referring to.

me: Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing.
Thus she is truly whole. (v.71 Mitchell)

Equating not-knowing with true knowledge overthrows your beloved "A=A," does it not? It is not to be understood with logic.

you: Not-knowing only ever means knowing the essential and is a form of superior knowledge which allows for potential greater understandings and possible new pathways.

You are making the very mistake the verse is pointing to. You want everything to be about what you know. What is so threatening about not knowing?

This in opposition to having loads of non-essential knowledge accumulated while missing mastery of the foundation. It's exactly the same with all types of knowledge in all human domains. The bare bones are always the more advanced and difficult to get, so they are skipped. A very limited understanding is now the maximum achievable. From a certain perspective this now appears as 'false knowledge' and presumption.

I don't have a problem with "bare-bones" knowledge. "1 + 1 = 2" is definitely of value. But I doubt this is what the Tao Te Ching is pointing to when it talks about not knowing. Just consider for a moment that you may not know what you think you know and that that is not necessarily a calamity. Hasn't history shown that the most dangerous people are the ones who think they have all the answers?

[divine focus]

You guys are barely disagreeing, even if you may not understand each other. Knowing, not knowing...even if you don't know, you know. You may not know in the form that you'd like, but you know.

[zarathustra]

Certainty, grace, faith, tao, bla, bla, bla, all indicate a SUSPENSION of reason, and in its place WILL - the will to believe where no reason or proof exists ( IGNORANCE, NO MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP). You twits are not worthy of respect, but ridicule, for the closed minded fools you are. I spit on your faith, your spirit, your grace, your certainty, your tao, and thereby give whatever respect they disserve - NONE! Which keep our brothers and sisters enslaved everywhere: Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaist, New Agers, are all equally IN THE DARK....I piss on your good books, your bibles, your korans, your torahs bla, bla, bla...you medievalists are NOT the cure - you're the f---ing plague!

z

[Sapius]

Certainty, grace, faith, tao, bla, bla, bla, all indicate a SUSPENSION of reason, and in its place WILL - the will to believe where no reason or proof exists ( IGNORANCE, NO MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP). You twits are not worthy of respect, but ridicule, for the closed minded fools you are. I spit on your faith, your spirit, your grace, your certainty, your tao, and thereby give whatever respect they disserve - NONE! Which keep our brothers and sisters enslaved everywhere: Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaist, New Agers, are all equally IN THE DARK....I piss on your good books, your bibles, your korans, your torahs bla, bla, bla...you medievalists are NOT the cure - you're the f---ing plague!

z

Wow! I see at least one is free from that "plague"; but I can’t see how anger, hate, detest or disrespect is a reasonable stand to take?

I think you need a break, Z, especially from yourself.

[brokenhead]

Certainty, grace, faith, tao, bla, bla, bla, all indicate a SUSPENSION of reason, and in its place WILL - the will to believe where no reason or proof exists ( IGNORANCE, NO MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP). You twits are not worthy of respect, but ridicule, for the closed minded fools you are. I spit on your faith, your spirit, your grace, your certainty, your tao, and thereby give whatever respect they disserve - NONE! Which keep our brothers and sisters enslaved everywhere: Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaist, New Agers, are all equally IN THE DARK....I piss on your good books, your bibles, your korans, your torahs bla, bla, bla...you medievalists are NOT the cure - you're the f---ing plague!

z

I fart in your general direction!

Hey,z: You are just the guy they were looking for. You know, Chairman Mao and the gang back in the late 60's.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Emptiness however isn't about thinking.

That's why I was talking about the mind not only about thinking. Although there's a complex causal relationship between them. Also there are many types of thoughts, not all of them we experience as such.

The Huang Po quotes just points to the idea that everything arises out of emptiness.

No, he doesn't. Emptiness is not a container in any way. Not a canvas, not even a backdrop. Although some poetic liberty is taken at times with these concepts to help people on the way.

If you want to discuss logic as a distinct subject, you have to define it by means of making distinctions. Can we agree on a commonly used definition? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/logic

With commonly used definitions the danger becomes that you keep on arriving at common thoughts and perception. What would you think of "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events". From thefreedictionary.com, number 4. This seems more useful, we want to get to the bottom of things, not just talk about science.

Yes, certainty is a state of mind, that's all I have been saying.

It's also a degree of clarity one has in perceiving and understanding something - deluded or not. Truth is a state of mind too, ultimately - that's how we know it.

me: The eternal Tao is non-dual. Anything else you can talk about.

you: That's just as right as saying: "the temporary Tao is dualistic".

There's no "anything else" but still we talk.

Again, you want to define everything as Tao. You can do that but the Tao Te Ching is pointing to something specific.

No, I don't want to define everything as Tao. The word specifically points in an highly intellectual manner to the way things are; the nature of existence. And we cannot help naming it as long as we breath.

You want everything to be about what you know. What is so threatening about not knowing?

The threat lies in the abuse of the term to justify mindlessness. I think it's better to talk about knowing and different types of understanding (like 'ultimate') than to attack knowledge and understanding altogether, even while it has value at times to counter over-intellectualizing and identification with the conceptual. But really, that's not the biggest problem we're dealing with. So many people have barely thought for themselves in their whole life and are craving for giving up that little bit. That's what suffering tempts us to do.

I don't have a problem with "bare-bones" knowledge. "1 + 1 = 2" is definitely of value. But I doubt this is what the Tao Te Ching is pointing to when it talks about not knowing. Just consider for a moment that you may not know what you think you know and that that is not necessarily a calamity. Hasn't history shown that the most dangerous people are the ones who think they have all the answers?

The most dangerous people would be the ones who do not have a clue about the fundamentals of their own being and still continue living, babbling and causing unbelievable evil in the name of many a good thing and then blaming something else for the damning consequences.

[zarathustra]

I don't feel hatred or resentiment for any of you mindless metaphysicians, only for what you BELIEVE, which you know and I know is mindless conjecture based on nothing but your WILL to believe in abstractions and fairy tales...you may dress up your ignorances in articulate strains of verbage, rhetoric, logic and mistique, but it's still what it is CRAP. On the other hand, if you can, with that RARE commodity we call human reason, appeal to my sense of justice and truth, offering evidence for your stupid utterances, then I would at least be tempted to think seriously about what you have to say. But we all know you could NEVER do that and maintain your positions, which require subtifuge, mystique and ambiguity to survive...

z