Can causality be infinite?

[Miacharawan]

I must agree that causality is very much an illusion, as, I suppose, is existence, perception, and a whole host of other things; but causality is, indeed, a useful illusion, as it has many implications ad can help direct us to lead lives which are desirable, or it can be used to seek what is beyond illusion by applying it 'against the grain', so to speak: that is, using causality to find the causal origination, and thereby shatter the illusion it creates, thereby shattering all illusions which are based on causality (which is essentially everything), and thereby allowing the freeing the mind as is freed the flame from the wick when all fuel has been exhausted. This fuel, in terms of causality, is simply the playing out of the direct consequences to the actions in life, until the moment of death, when causality plays its final role against perception, and so passes, also, the single-pointed essence of perception, into a state of perfect non-origination. This state cannot be 'understood', but it can be glimpsed through experience once causal origination is understood. Once it has been glimpsed, it becomes the sole desire of whomever has glimpsed it, as it is, in comparison to all other things, a gem so gleaming and bright as to dull the sheen of gold and darken the brightest light.

[Sapius]

David: Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

So, Reality would mean absolutely nothing whatsoever without that which makes up the very body of Reality. Correct? Further more, what is the reason of assuming that “Reality” has a “body”, or that there is such a thing as Reality? (Assuming that you consider a thought to be ‘thing’ too)

David: Wherever things exist within the body of Reality, causation is immediately there.

Otherwise not? So if no things, then no causation, hence no Reality, since causation is the very body of Reality. Isn’t it? Secondly, is ‘no things’ even ever possible and yet Reality to BE, and remain what it is? What and where would Reality be without that which makes up the “body” of Reality itself? Are you saying that Reality is dependant on what makes it up?

What does "Reality" with a capitol 'R' actually mean?

[samadhi]

David,

sam: David expressly rejects surrender as a path. He preaches causation while blaming others for their ideas and actions all the time.

David: I understand why you think this, but you are mistaken.

sam: Must I quote you?

David: Be my guest.

Okay, a small sampling:

You have mentioned, Kevin, that you think he is very thick, and I have mentioned in the debate thread that I think he is very self-righteous and evasive, but I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a medical condition at play, such as autism or Asperger's syndrome.

Translation: "sam and I disagree. There must be something wrong with sam. And I can tell you what it is."

Your desire to locate the source of your uncertainty within historical and social movements is simply a way of making yourself even more comfortable with the chaos. Not only does it deflect attention away from the true source of your uncertainty - namely, your own fear of truth - but it absolves you from taking any responsibility for it.

Translation: "Alex and I disagree. There must be something wrong with Alex. And I can tell you what it is."

I see you as someone who has made some significant breakthroughs, but has stagnated because of overestimating their importance in the larger scheme of things, resulting in a ceiling being formed over your mind. I also see you as someone whose buttons are easily pushed.

Translation: "mikiel and I disagree. There must be something wrong with mikiel. And I can tell you what it is."

I said to Laird recently that he comes across as an inexperienced, sex-obsessed teenager, and while this is true, it is really a symptom of a deeper condition - namely, that there is a total lack of spiritual ambition inside him and a complete reluctance to develop beyond the embryonic consciousness in which he resides.

Translation: "Laird and I disagree. There must be something wrong with Laird. And I can tell you what it is."

[samadhi]

David,

sam: You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

sam: And what might that be?

David: That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

This is great. We have a whole debate where you deny the need to surrender to causation and then turn around and advocate it. Wonderful. So, what action is implied by this surrender that you previously denied but now embrace?

David: Secondly, the concept of gravity merely points to a certain type of phenomenon occuring within Reality - and as such, it is philosophically insignificant.

sam: Cause and effect points to a certain phenomena within Reality too. I mean, it's all within Reality, right?

David: Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

What is "the very body of Reality"? Why are you being so pompous? Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

David: It doesn't help mind understand the fundamental nature of all Reality in the way that the causation concept can. That is why I go on and on about the latter, and all but ignore the former.

sam: I'm not sure why you think the fundamental nature of reality is understandable. What makes the mind the final arbiter of Reality given that mind arose from Reality?

David: It is precisely because the mind arises from Reality that such understanding is possible. The mind's own nature is Reality's nature. When the mind is no longer deluded about itself, it can perceive both its own nature and Reality's nature, which are one.

The mind reasons, that's its job. The nature of reality is not a matter of reason. If it were so, the ego would claim it for its own.

David: The causation concept doesn't just point to a mere phenomenon, but to the very principle behind all phenomena, including gravity. As such, its scope is infinitely more vast.

sam: And what is the very principle behind all phenomena?

David: Surrender to the truth and you will find out.

Again with the surrender. What action does surrender imply to you?

David: And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

sam: I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

David: Let's take it slowly. Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

I understand the principle (although please don't pretend to know where thoughts come from). I don't understand where this timelessness comes in.

[David Quinn]

David,

sam: David expressly rejects surrender as a path. He preaches causation while blaming others for their ideas and actions all the time.

David: I understand why you think this, but you are mistaken.

sam: Must I quote you?

David: Be my guest.

Okay, a small sampling:

You have mentioned, Kevin, that you think he is very thick, and I have mentioned in the debate thread that I think he is very self-righteous and evasive, but I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a medical condition at play, such as autism or Asperger's syndrome.

Translation: "sam and I disagree. There must be something wrong with sam. And I can tell you what it is."

Your desire to locate the source of your uncertainty within historical and social movements is simply a way of making yourself even more comfortable with the chaos. Not only does it deflect attention away from the true source of your uncertainty - namely, your own fear of truth - but it absolves you from taking any responsibility for it.

Translation: "Alex and I disagree. There must be something wrong with Alex. And I can tell you what it is."

I see you as someone who has made some significant breakthroughs, but has stagnated because of overestimating their importance in the larger scheme of things, resulting in a ceiling being formed over your mind. I also see you as someone whose buttons are easily pushed.

Translation: "mikiel and I disagree. There must be something wrong with mikiel. And I can tell you what it is."

I said to Laird recently that he comes across as an inexperienced, sex-obsessed teenager, and while this is true, it is really a symptom of a deeper condition - namely, that there is a total lack of spiritual ambition inside him and a complete reluctance to develop beyond the embryonic consciousness in which he resides.

Translation: "Laird and I disagree. There must be something wrong with Laird. And I can tell you what it is."

I don't see any evidence of my casting blame here, your biased "translations" notwithstanding.

Each of my observations above constitutes a judgement, not an act of casting blame.

Are you able to see the difference?

-

[David Quinn]

David,

sam: You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

sam: And what might that be?

David: That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

This is great. We have a whole debate where you deny the need to surrender to causation and then turn around and advocate it. Wonderful. So, what action is implied by this surrender that you previously denied but now embrace?

I've never denied the need to surrender to the truth, and indeed I specifically stated in the debate that it was the only form of surrender I recognized. At the same time, I don't believe in your concept of surrender, mainly because it is too vague to be meaningful and has no connection to truth.

As for the actions involved in surrendering to the truth, I also spelt this out in the debate so I refer you there. You could try reading it this time.

David: Secondly, the concept of gravity merely points to a certain type of phenomenon occurring within Reality - and as such, it is philosophically insignificant.

sam: Cause and effect points to a certain phenomena within Reality too. I mean, it's all within Reality, right?

David: Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

What is "the very body of Reality"? Why are you being so pompous?

I was speaking simply and directly to the point. In particular, I was distinguishing between phenomena occurring within Reality, such as gravity, and the whole of Reality itself. Cause and effect isn't a phenomenon within Reality, like gravity is, but rather it is the very fabric of Reality itself. It is the core fabric which underlies all the various phenomena in the world.

Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

David: It doesn't help mind understand the fundamental nature of all Reality in the way that the causation concept can. That is why I go on and on about the latter, and all but ignore the former.

sam: I'm not sure why you think the fundamental nature of reality is understandable. What makes the mind the final arbiter of Reality given that mind arose from Reality?

David: It is precisely because the mind arises from Reality that such understanding is possible. The mind's own nature is Reality's nature. When the mind is no longer deluded about itself, it can perceive both its own nature and Reality's nature, which are one.

The mind reasons, that's its job. The nature of reality is not a matter of reason. If it were so, the ego would claim it for its own.

The nature of Reality can only be understood when reason is pushed to such an extreme that even the ego disappears.

David: And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

sam: I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

David: Let's take it slowly. Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

I understand the principle (although please don't pretend to know where thoughts come from). I don't understand where this timelessness comes in.

As I say, it isn't possible to understand causation without, at the same time, understanding its timelessness. The two go together. There can't be one without the other.

If you can't see how and why causation is timeless, then it means that you haven't yet discerned what causation is.

I don't think you're serious in wanting to understand these matters, but just in case you are, I would ask you to consider again the question I posed above:

Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

-

[samadhi]

I don't see any evidence of my casting blame here, your biased "translations" notwithstanding.

Each of my observations above constitutes a judgement, not an act of casting blame.

Are you able to see the difference?

Oh boy. Denial by definition. Try Merriam-Webster: to find fault with, to hold responsible for. So you don't think you were finding fault and holding those at fault responsible for it? Your judgments are about making disparagments based on your prejudices, not discernments based on what people actually said. Of course, you won't see this. Ho hum.

[samadhi]

David,

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

sam: And what might that be?

David: That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

sam: This is great. We have a whole debate where you deny the need to surrender to causation and then turn around and advocate it. Wonderful. So, what action is implied by this surrender that you previously denied but now embrace?

David: I've never denied the need to surrender to the truth, and indeed I specifically stated in the debate that it was the only form of surrender I recognized.

This is completely bogus as I pointed out to Toast. Surrender to truth is meaningless without describing some action it entails. People don't surrender to truth, they do stop lying, stop harming, etc. Either tell us what it means or stop giving lip service to a pet concept that you can't even formulate.

At the same time, I don't believe in your concept of surrender, mainly because it is too vague to be meaningful and has no connection to truth.

What isn't meaningful about not blaming people? And what connection to truth does blaming people have?

As for the actions involved in surrendering to the truth, I also spelt this out in the debate so I refer you there. You could try reading it this time.

Ah, blame me for not reading. You're a real treasure.

No, I'm not going to re-read the whole debate. If you can't name a SINGLE ACTION having to do with surrender, then clearly your interest in it is zero, just like I said.

David: Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

sam: What is "the very body of Reality"? Why are you being so pompous?

I was speaking simply and directly to the point. In particular, I was distinguishing between phenomena occurring within Reality, such as gravity, and the whole of Reality itself. Cause and effect isn't a phenomenon within Reality, like gravity is, but rather it is the very fabric of Reality itself. It is the core fabric which underlies all the various phenomena in the world.

Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle. In any event, cause and effect, like gravity, is about the physical world. You keep implying it isn't, that there is some other Reality which cause and effect make up. What is that reality if it isn't the physical world?

sam: Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

Look, you can't get away from gravity either. Why don't you just say you're not interested in gravity despite it being the foundation for your cause and effect.

The nature of Reality can only be understood when reason is pushed to such an extreme that even the ego disappears.

You and I disagree about what can be understood and what can't.

David: And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

sam: I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

David: Let's take it slowly. Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

sam: I understand the principle (although please don't pretend to know where thoughts come from). I don't understand where this timelessness comes in.

David: If you can't see how and why causation is timeless, then it means that you haven't yet discerned what causation is.

No, I don't understand what you are getting at by calling it timeless. Cause and effect arise within a physical world. Do you notice how it doesn't operate within a psychological world such as dreams? Reality is much larger than the physical world yet you want to take a physical principle and project it everywhere. Why do you want to do that?

I don't think you're serious in wanting to understand these matters, but just in case you are, I would ask you to consider again the question I posed above:

Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

Causation is about the physical world. Do you really think reality is limited to the physical? Have you ever been unconscious? What is causation to the unconscious?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Before one is able to speak of someone being a responsible agent, that someone first has to know what he's doing, in other words becoming more conscious. If this doesn't seem the case, one could point out faults but it will always revolve around not being conscious enough, a troubled connection to truth and so on.

To use blame in this context is like saying that Jesus on the cross was blaming everyone, and not forgiving, because he pointed out they didn't have a clue what they were doing.

[samadhi]

Before one is able to speak of someone being a responsible agent, that someone first has to know what he's doing, in other words becoming more conscious. If this doesn't seem the case, one could point out faults but it will always revolve around not being conscious enough, a troubled connection to truth and so on.

Nothing wrong with being more conscious. But that isn't what the discussion is about, unless David actually wants to say, "people I disparage are unconscious so I can say whatever I want about them without blaming them." But I doubt he really wants to go there.

To use blame in this context is like saying that Jesus on the cross was blaming everyone, and not forgiving, because he pointed out they didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Since he expressly forgave them, making it about blame would seem to be about the one offering that interpretation and not Jesus himself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... unless David actually wants to say, "people I disparage are unconscious so I can say whatever I want about them without blaming them."

Not just whatever but things like "fear of truth", "ceiling being formed", "lack of spiritual ambition" and "embryonic consciousness" are saying all basically same thing, or not? That is: telling them they don't' know what they're doing, which is a lack of consciousness and truth relation. It's all a bit different than saying "your mother was a whore and your father a goat".

Since he [Jesus] expressly forgave them, making it about blame would seem to be about the one offering that interpretation and not Jesus himself.

In the same breath he was mentioning their lack of consciousness. You're making such remarks about blame, not me. Or at least that was the point I was attempting to make.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: ... unless David actually wants to say, "people I disparage are unconscious so I can say whatever I want about them without blaming them."

Diebert: Not just whatever but things like "fear of truth", "ceiling being formed", "lack of spiritual ambition" and "embryonic consciousness" are saying all basically same thing, or not?

Alex fears truth? Give me a break. David himself seems afraid of the truth. A simple thing that everyone does, David cannot acknowledge. And who is David to judge mikiel's "ceiling", Laird's lack of spiritual ambition or my mental health? It's ludicrous to suggest he deserves a pass on handing down judgments like that.

That is: telling them they don't' know what they're doing, which is a lack of consciousness and truth relation. It's all a bit different than saying "your mother was a whore and your father a goat".

Passing judgment on how conscious someone else is as a way to disparage them is blaming. How does he know? He DOESN'T! But I bet it feels good to judge them.

sam: Since he [Jesus] expressly forgave them, making it about blame would seem to be about the one offering that interpretation and not Jesus himself.

Diebert: In the same breath he was mentioning their lack of consciousness. You're making such remarks about blame, not me. Or at least that was the point I was attempting to make.

You brought in Jesus and suggested his words were about blame. In fact he was praying, not lecturing someone about how unconscious they are.

[Relo]

What would you guys "agree" on to what you are arguing about fundamentally? I could say that you are "drilling" into each others concrete ignorance into what you missed from where you constructed these concrete ideas on what we take as a view from one another and perceive it across a message board for certain reasons, as in "digging" for the truth.

When would the use of dynamite become useful?

[David Quinn]

I don't see any evidence of my casting blame here, your biased "translations" notwithstanding.

Each of my observations above constitutes a judgement, not an act of casting blame.

Are you able to see the difference?

Oh boy. Denial by definition. Try Merriam-Webster: to find fault with, to hold responsible for. So you don't think you were finding fault and holding those at fault responsible for it? Your judgments are about making disparagments based on your prejudices, not discernments based on what people actually said. Of course, you won't see this. Ho hum.

When a farmer asks, "Why isn't that tree producing any fruit?" and concludes, upon investigation, that it is infected with a bacterial disease, is he blaming the tree?

No, he is simply assessing its condition, with a view to improving it.

Everybody makes judgments, including yourself. Including the Buddha. Including Adya. It is a natural function of the mind.

If a particular person, such as an Alex or a Laird, cannot see the great truths of life, which are so obvious and staring at him in the face, then clearly there is a problem. There are mental blocks at play. Assessing exactly what the problem is constitutes the very first step towards resolving it. Becaused of this, the ability to judge is absolutely critical to spiritual development.

Your constant desire to denigrate this function and have it disabled is telling.

You are being judged because of it.

-

[David Quinn]

You brought in Jesus and suggested his words were about blame. In fact he was praying, not lecturing someone about how unconscious they are.

"Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely." Mark 12: 38

--

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5: 20

--

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Matthew 6: 5

--

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

"Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’

"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Matthew 23:1

--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your ancestors! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Matthew 23: 13


--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Matthew 23: 13

--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, then you make that convert twice as much a child of hell as you are. Matthew 23: 15

--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matthew 23: 23

--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Matthew 23: 25

--

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. Matthew 23: 27


Etc.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

.... mikiel's "ceiling", Laird's lack of spiritual ambition or my mental health? It's ludicrous to suggest he deserves a pass on handing down judgments like that.

I was wondering after reading those Gospel texts what the "hypocrisy" judgement/insult could mean in a broader sense.

From Wiki

In other languages, including French, a hypocrite is one who hides his intentions and true personality.

Whereas hypokrisis applied to any sort of public performance (including the art of rhetoric), hypokrites was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure.

This is Self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people. In other words, "Psychological hypocrisy" is usually interpreted by psychological theorists to be an unconscious defense mechanism rather than a conscious act of deception, as in the more classic connotation of hypocrisy.

So, what I want to say is not that David is the King of the Jews, the larger point is that attacking him or anyone else for passing judgments about other people's connection to truth or degree of awareness is not a valid criticism.

Sam's real point is that he doesn't accept such judgments from David, full stop. There is no further argument underneath.

[David Quinn]

I think it goes deeper than that. He doesn't like being judged at all - by anyone or anything. His ego hates it.

This is why he locks himself away in that vacuum he calls "surrender", a place he has contrived where nothing can touch him. And also why he quickly starts moralizing and condemning people in that matronly tone whenever they start using logic in their discussions with him. There seems to be a need to keep everything far away, at all times.

It also explains why he hangs around on this forum. He had thought his situation fool-proof, as he can handle all the standard, conventional fare with ease. But this place succeeds in getting under his skin, which unsettles him, and he needs to find a way to put it to bed.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

sam: And what might that be?

David: That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

sam: This is great. We have a whole debate where you deny the need to surrender to causation and then turn around and advocate it. Wonderful. So, what action is implied by this surrender that you previously denied but now embrace?

David: I've never denied the need to surrender to the truth, and indeed I specifically stated in the debate that it was the only form of surrender I recognized.

This is completely bogus as I pointed out to Toast. Surrender to truth is meaningless without describing some action it entails. People don't surrender to truth, they do stop lying, stop harming, etc. Either tell us what it means or stop giving lip service to a pet concept that you can't even formulate.

Surrendering to the truth means no longer engaging in false thinking, no longer engaging in duplicity, no longer believing in life and death, no longer triggering the emotions, no longer seeking certainty in a particular perspective or viewpoint, no longer being bound by forms, no longer being part of the human race. It means waking up to the immeasurable freedom of the Infinite.

David: Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

sam: What is "the very body of Reality"? Why are you being so pompous?

David: I was speaking simply and directly to the point. In particular, I was distinguishing between phenomena occurring within Reality, such as gravity, and the whole of Reality itself. Cause and effect isn't a phenomenon within Reality, like gravity is, but rather it is the very fabric of Reality itself. It is the core fabric which underlies all the various phenomena in the world.

Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle.

You need to brush up on your science. Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the others being electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

In any event, cause and effect, like gravity, is about the physical world. You keep implying it isn't, that there is some other Reality which cause and effect make up. What is that reality if it isn't the physical world?

Everything that exists is comprised of cause and effect - the physical world, the mental realms, the mystical realms, dreams, gravity, everything.

sam: Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

Look, you can't get away from gravity either. Why don't you just say you're not interested in gravity despite it being the foundation for your cause and effect.

Because gravity is a causal consequence of objects with mass, and thus is just one creation out of countless others that have been whipped up by causation. Causation, by contrast, isn't a creation of anything, let alone of gravity. It is the timeless principle of creation itself - beyond creation and destruction, beyond life and death.

To the degree that you continue to mistake causation as being a mere creation within Reality and not the very principle of creation itself, you will not understand it.

David: And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

sam: I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

David: Let's take it slowly. Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

sam: I understand the principle (although please don't pretend to know where thoughts come from). I don't understand where this timelessness comes in.

David: If you can't see how and why causation is timeless, then it means that you haven't yet discerned what causation is.

No, I don't understand what you are getting at by calling it timeless. Cause and effect arise within a physical world. Do you notice how it doesn't operate within a psychological world such as dreams?

It operates everywhere, even within dreams. Yes, chains of events observed in dreams often differ from what is observed in the physical world, but that is simply because different causes are at work. Memory, emotion and imagination, for example, tend to causally interfere with the dreaming process and help shape what is experienced in dreams.

Reality is much larger than the physical world yet you want to take a physical principle and project it everywhere. Why do you want to do that?

Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.

While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.

I don't think you're serious in wanting to understand these matters, but just in case you are, I would ask you to consider again the question I posed above:

Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

Causation is about the physical world. Do you really think reality is limited to the physical? Have you ever been unconscious? What is causation to the unconscious?

A dead body rolled into a grave, rotting away, becoming food for other lifeforms ...... and yet all along, the dead body caused to be unaware of all this.

Knowing now that causation is not just limited to the physical world, but extends to all realms, are you now able to see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens?

-

[samadhi]

Wow, the babies are really rocking the playpen! They got their rattles out and are letting momma know they ain't happy! lol ...

Where to start? Well, I won't be arguing Jesus. David certainly ain't Jesus! lol ...

Diebert,

So, what I want to say is not that David is the King of the Jews, the larger point is that attacking him or anyone else for passing judgments about other people's connection to truth or degree of awareness is not a valid criticism.

Ah, a free pass! Good argument Diebert! You have taken cluelessness to a new level! lol ...

Sam's real point is that he doesn't accept such judgments from David, full stop. There is no further argument underneath.

I pointed out how blame enters into his pronouncements. So hard to see? I guess as a disciple you have to toe the line otherwise David might be very unhappy with you! lol ...



David,

I think it goes deeper than that. He doesn't like being judged at all - by anyone or anything. His ego hates it.

Lol. Judge away. I'm just pointing out how you enjoy blaming others even while you deny doing that. You have an image to protect after all. Mustn't tarnish that image.

This is why he locks himself away in that vacuum he calls "surrender", a place he has contrived where nothing can touch him. And also why he quickly starts moralizing and condemning people in that matronly tone whenever they start using logic in their discussions with him. There seems to be a need to keep everything far away, at all times.

Ah, let the blame rain down! lol ... You're a real piece of work.

It also explains why he hangs around on this forum. He had thought his situation fool-proof, as he can handle all the standard, conventional fare with ease. But this place succeeds in getting under his skin, which unsettles him, and he needs to find a way to put it to bed.

I enjoy myself here. It's a nice playpen, especially when the screaming starts! lol ...

[samadhi]

Wait, I overlooked a post where some reason is actually introduced. Who woulda thunk?

When a farmer asks, "Why isn't that tree producing any fruit?" and concludes, upon investigation, that it is infected with a bacterial disease, is he blaming the tree?

No, he is simply assessing its condition, with a view to improving it.

Right, no argument.

Everybody makes judgments, including yourself. Including the Buddha. Including Adya. It is a natural function of the mind.

The question is, is the judgment about evidence or is it about one's own internal processes? Is it prompted by dispassion or disagreement? Is the judgment intended to disparage or denigrate as opposed to elucidate? Does it moralize over another person's ideas and motives?

If a particular person, such as an Alex or a Laird, cannot see the great truths of life, which are so obvious and staring at him in the face, then clearly there is a problem. There are mental blocks at play. Assessing exactly what the problem is constitutes the very first step towards resolving it. Becaused of this, the ability to judge is absolutely critical to spiritual development.

It is not your place to judge other's spiritual development, mental health or love of truth. You have no access to anything other than their words and as I'm sure you're aware, the meaning of words rests with the person speaking them, not with the person hearing them. Disparaging others is simply about judgment, it's not about truth.

Your constant desire to denigrate this function and have it disabled is telling.

And your constant misunderstanding of what it means to judge someone is also telling.

You are being judged because of it.

I am being disparaged based on your misunderstanding and disagreement. You have no recognition of your own limitations.

[David Quinn]

Everybody makes judgments, including yourself. Including the Buddha. Including Adya. It is a natural function of the mind.

The question is, is the judgment about evidence or is it about one's own internal processes? Is it prompted by dispassion or disagreement? Is the judgment intended to disparage or denigrate as opposed to elucidate? Does it moralize over another person's ideas and motives?

Sure. In my opinion, the judgments I have made in the recent past are based in evidence and dispassionately reflect the truth. I have no reason to think otherwise.

That you personally don't like a lot of the judgments I make and want to depict them as "disparagements" is irrelevant. You would need to produce some proper evidence that my judgments have been wrong, if you want to me reconsider them. Your fall-back routine of putting on a matronly voice and wagging your finger disapprovingly isn't enough.

In any case, the same questions can just as easily be asked of you. For example, is your judgment that all I do is disparage people simply a disparagement of me?

If a particular person, such as an Alex or a Laird, cannot see the great truths of life, which are so obvious and staring at him in the face, then clearly there is a problem. There are mental blocks at play. Assessing exactly what the problem is constitutes the very first step towards resolving it. Becaused of this, the ability to judge is absolutely critical to spiritual development.

It is not your place to judge other's spiritual development, mental health or love of truth.

And yet you are more than happy to judge others with respect to these things.

As I say, we all do it - you, me, Buddha, Adya, everyone. To mentally recognize what is before us - whether it be a person or an object, or the level of mental or spiritual development in the person before us - is a natural function of the mind. To interfere with this natural functioning out of an attachment to conventional moralizing or false humility is a form of madness. I will never be a party to this.

If truth be told, I'm just doing openly what you do underhandedly behind that moral pose of yours.

You have no access to anything other than their words and as I'm sure you're aware, the meaning of words rests with the person speaking them, not with the person hearing them.

True, one has to be extra careful. But even within words, consistent patterns can emerge over time and a psychological profile of the author can take shape.

Disparaging others is simply about judgment, it's not about truth.

At the same time, an unflattering assessment is not necessarily a disparagement, but could be an expression of truth.

It is in your ego's interests to interpret every unflattering judgment as a disparagement, but in my judgment such undiscriminating behaviour is a very unintelligent way to go about things and certainly has nothing to do with spirituality.

Where to start? Well, I won't be arguing Jesus. David certainly ain't Jesus! lol ...

That wasn't the point being put forward, either by myself or Diebert. Something much more interesting was being explored.

So what do you make of those quotes by Jesus? Do you consider them to be dispassionate judgments of a pure mind, or a collection of disparaging put-downs borne of his own egotism?

-

[Dave Toast]

DT,

sam: I don't see that. Causation is an everyday phenomena. The universe is what we regard as our environment in toto. Trying to explain our environment in toto through an everyday phenomenom leads to contradictions which I described.

DT: How exactly are you addressing my objections to your applying one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe here? You've said something vague about what you think causality is and you've said something about what you think universe is (in relation to an 80's AOR supergroup). You haven't addressed the ontological framework in which they're respectively framed in the slightest.

I don't know what you want from me. My loose definitions are just that. I am not trying to put them in an ontological framework. When I first referred to treating causation in an ontological sense, I simply meant applying it as an explanation of being. It falls apart at that level.

My assertion was as straightforward as they come and the subject of what your answer should address is crystal clear - ontological framework. Yet you don't go anywhere near it and instead go off on vague, muddying tangents. Why?

See above.

You spoke of how causation can be seen as merely a conceptual framework, i.e. of mind - with no existence beyond that. Then you tried to relate this causation to a concrete universe, i.e. not of mind - with existence beyond that. In doing so, you concluded a problem.

My point was that causation on an everyday level is fine. When I push a button, my TV comes on. But when you try to apply it as an explanation of the universe, no go. Don't try to explain the universe through causation, it doesn't work.

I tried to illustrate this ontological conflation as the source of the concluded problem. Further I suggested that, instead, placing universe in the same ontological framework you'd put causation in resolves the concluded problem.

I think you confused what I was trying to say.

Causation as conceptual framework is an ultimate explanation of universe as mind.

I don't know what this means.

DT: Either treat them both literally in an ontological sense or treat neither literally in an ontological sense, when relating them to one another.

sam: I do treat them both literally [in an ontological sense].

DT: Yeah, except you don't.

I do. You are misunderstanding my point.

DT: This problem is endemic in your writing. You employ an esoteric understanding of a concept and, in the same breath, revert right back to the standard exoteric understanding of the same concept.

sam: Example please.[?]

DT: Just one?

It's a start.

sam: And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will.

DT: Esoteric understanding: no self - no free will - no choice.
Exoteric understanding: choice - free will - self.

Again, misunderstanding. Choice as I framed it is an experience, not a concept of free will.

DT: IMO, this is because you don't understand what surrender is, what one surrenders to - truth, the only genuine authority. Rather, you surrender to arbitrary pronouncements handed down to you by spurious authority, bits of truth validated in only the most cursory manner, their corollaries ignored.

sam: You are giving me your interpretation of something I wrote. Give me what I wrote first and we can discuss it.

DT: I am giving you my interpretation of large parts of the entirity of your writing, that's why I wrote "This problem is endemic in your writing." I am then giving you my interpretation of why that is, that's why I followed it with "IMO, this is because....".

Well, it appears you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

What's so hard to understand about that?

You have to give me my words. When you do, I explain them. Otherwise, I cannot point you to your misunderstanding.

Communicating efficaciously with you is becoming nigh on impossible sam.

Look, this is the first time you have tried to discuss with me what I've written. You misunderstood it, that's all. And why are you blaming me for the problem? You have never attempted communication before and that puts me at fault? Please.

sam: What I said was that causation implies surrender. Without the surrender, you are where you began. Do you understand that? You want to criticize me without understanding what I'm saying.

DT: Evidently, you don't understand what you're saying yourself sam. If you did, you'd realise that what I said above pertained, in the correct formulation, to your incorrect formulation. The person who surrenders to the truth of no self, in isolation, as opposed to their surrendering to truth full stop, is the person who's gross delusions about the nature of reality allow and even necessitate their using this surrender to no self to prop up the self.

This is ridiculous. What the hell does it mean to "surrender to the truth full stop." You give me an absolutely meaningless concept and try to tell me it contradicts what I was saying. If you want to talk about surrender, then tell me what actions you are referring to. Without that, you're spewing nonsense.

To wit, surrendering to the truth of no self without understanding every aspect of the truth of no self is about as effective as a fish surrendering to the truth of oxygen being available outside of water. It flaps about, wondering why its gills cannot process the oxygen in the air and quickly makes for the shallows where there's just enough processable oxygen, satisfied that it's no longer completely immersed in water.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you may make a mistake doesn't mean you can't start. I told you where to start which is with blaming. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE. Do you understand what that means or not? Your argument is basically, you must do everything all at once or it's worthless. That's complete nonsense.

DT: This is how you come to make the following bizarre distinction in your last debate post, "And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

sam: Right. Choice is part of life, whether you believe in causation or not. But your choices can reflect a belief in free will or causation.

DT: In understanding that all is caused, one realises that free agency and choice are illusory. You are suggesting that one drops the delusion of believing in free agency and yet maintains the delusion of believing in choice. The important part for you is that these illusory choices are made to reflect a lack of belief in the delusion of free will.

Again, choice is a matter of experience no matter what your belief is. If your belief is in causation, your choices should reflect that, i.e. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE. If you blame people, you are treating them as free agents. Do you understand that?

And you ask me to provide example of your equivocating ontological frameworks? Can there be any better example than the above? Is there a better example of the problem with surrendering to isolated truths instead of truth? Any better example of a fish out of water?

You misunderstood me. You don't seem to understand the choice is a MATTER OF EXPERIENCE, not belief.

So, what's your next example?

sam: I was pointing out how David's reflect his belief in free will while he promotes causation. That tells you something, doesn't it?

DT: It does indeed. It tells me that David's surrender to truth has allowed him to understand and accept the true nature of causation and free will in that light, whilst your lack of surrender to truth has not furnished you likewise.

More nonsense. David expressly rejects surrender as a path. He preaches causation while blaming others for their ideas and actions all the time. Did you even read the debate? If you did, plainly you don't understand this. Surrender is about ACTION, not about lip service.

This leads you to truly believe that David 'believes' in your conception of free will when he promotes understanding causation and the nature of reality as the key to mastering gross delusion, when nothing could be further from the truth.

David's actions speak louder than words. That's what I listen to, I suggest you do the same.

As opposed to giving you a pass sam, I'm afraid it's an epic phail.

I'm not going to bother investigating your lack of ontological framework in which you work with your 'loose definitions', nor discuss choice being an experience where free will is somehow not. I won't be going into my assessment of your fuzzy thoughts on the matter being completely sidestepped and being misunderstood by you as a misunderstanding on my part. I won't be reminding you that I've been reading your words here and at TPG for more than 8 years and that this is not, by any means, the first time we've 'communicated'. We won't be discussing your surrender versus true surrender, nor will I be lowering myself to saying things like STOP BLAMING ME FOR BLAMING, in pointing out the fallacy in that particular game. You will not be enlightened as to the nature of what a caused free agent is and how blame fits into that picture. We definitely won't be assessing how David 'expressly rejects surrender as a path' when he's expressed the complete opposite to you on more than one occasion. And we certainly won't be exploring how someone who does not even begin to understand the philosophy of another is wholly incapable of assessing their actions in their true light.

Why won't I be doing this? For the same reasons I wouldn't discuss such things with any fundy, once the rock solid nature of their fundamentalism, lack of reasoning and willingness to reason further thereon had been established. Also for the very same reasons I wouldn't be trying to reason with someone who makes no effort whatsoever to understand a word said. Life is way too short.

I'm sure you'll be most gratified (or whatever it is that a zombie doesn't think on such occasions) to hear that we're done.

[samadhi]

Toast,

Obviously we don't understand each other's positions but you want to make that my problem. Fine. Enjoy yourself.

[samadhi]

David,

David: I've never denied the need to surrender to the truth, and indeed I specifically stated in the debate that it was the only form of surrender I recognized.

sam: This is completely bogus as I pointed out to Toast. Surrender to truth is meaningless without describing some action it entails. People don't surrender to truth, they do stop lying, stop harming, etc. Either tell us what it means or stop giving lip service to a pet concept that you can't even formulate.

David: Surrendering to the truth means no longer engaging in false thinking, no longer engaging in duplicity, no longer believing in life and death, no longer triggering the emotions, no longer seeking certainty in a particular perspective or viewpoint, no longer being bound by forms, no longer being part of the human race. It means waking up to the immeasurable freedom of the Infinite.

Ah, well it's about time you said something we can actually look at.

"no longer engaging in false thinking" - this is still problematic. False depends on a point of view.

"no longer engaging in duplicity" - fine

"no longer believeing in life and death" - people don't stop believing in life and death as a matter of logic. In fact, this happens after enlightenment, not before it. Of course, pondering life and death is a possibility.

"no longer triggering the emotions" - you probably mean not indulging in emotions which is fine.

"no longer seeking certainty in a particular perspective or viewpoint" - this is ridiculous coming from you since all you do here is push a viewpoint. But even outside that, giving up certainty in viewpoints is a PRODUCT of enlightenment, not a cause. Of course one can always refrain from the dogmatic expression of views as a surrender (though I'm sure you would exempt your dogmatic view of causation).

"no longer being bound by forms" - what the hell is this? Even the enlightened have a body, thoughts and feelings.

"no longer being part of the human race" - you probably mean not being identified as human, which again is a product of enlightenment, not a cause.

"It means waking up to the immeasurable freedom of the Infinite" - this is meaningless as an action about surrender.

Overall, your surrender to truth amounts to not lying, thinking about life and death, not indulging emotions, refraining from the expression of dogmatic viewpoints, and pondering one's humanity. It's a start. There is some basis for you and I actually agreeing, although only some of them are related to surrendering to causation.

sam: Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle.

David: You need to brush up on your science. Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the others being electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Right. My point is the physical world would not exist without gravity. There would be no basis for galaxies, stars, planets or humans.

Everything that exists is comprised of cause and effect - the physical world, the mental realms, the mystical realms, dreams, gravity, everything.

You are getting metaphysical on me. Cause and effect isn't a thing, it is an idea.

sam: Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

You are assuming your conclusion. And I've already pointed out where it isn't happening.

sam: Look, you can't get away from gravity either. Why don't you just say you're not interested in gravity despite it being the foundation for your cause and effect.

David: Because gravity is a causal consequence of objects with mass, and thus is just one creation out of countless others that have been whipped up by causation. Causation, by contrast, isn't a creation of anything, let alone of gravity. It is the timeless principle of creation itself - beyond creation and destruction, beyond life and death.

Gravity isn't caused by mass, it is a property of mass, like weight. And I still think it is problematic to discuss causation apart from the events out of which it is discerned. It is like discussing wetness apart from water. There is no wetness without water and there is no causation without a physical world in which to observe it.

To the degree that you continue to mistake causation as being a mere creation within Reality and not the very principle of creation itself, you will not understand it.

I doubt I will come to your understanding of it. You seem to place it in the world of Platonic forms where it exists as some ideal. To me that's just your imagination.

David: If you can't see how and why causation is timeless, then it means that you haven't yet discerned what causation is.

sam: No, I don't understand what you are getting at by calling it timeless. Cause and effect arise within a physical world. Do you notice how it doesn't operate within a psychological world such as dreams?

David: It operates everywhere, even within dreams. Yes, chains of events observed in dreams often differ from what is observed in the physical world, but that is simply because different causes are at work. Memory, emotion and imagination, for example, tend to causally interfere with the dreaming process and help shape what is experienced in dreams.

This is interesting because I had a vivid dream last night. I somehow came into possession of piles of money. Literally piles. I became so engrossed in the money that I lost track of my wallet. Suddenly I had to find my wallet. When I found it, all my credit cards and identification were missing. I got scared. Who took them? My brother said he had them but when he gave them to me, they were only some old pictures. I never found my credit cards or ID.

So. Where did the money come from? It didn't come from anywhere, it was just there, uncaused in your lingo. How did I lose my wallet? Again, uncaused. Who took my credit cards and ID? No one took them, they simply disappeared, uncaused. Or if we say they were never there to begin with, what caused me to believe I lost them? Nothing did, I just believed it. How did my brother get those pictures? There is no reason, he just had them.

Dreaming is about effects, not causes. For you to say that the dream world operates on the same basis as this world is indicative to me of your attachment to the idea of causation. You can't find a cause for practically anything in a dream yet you will insist it is all cause and effect. No evidence is presented for your conclusion, it's entirely made up and yet nothing I or anyone else could say would dissuade you from your belief. It is purely a matter of faith. And yet you will insist to me it's about logic. And there is no possibility of you seeing the contradiction. I think this example epitomizes the differences between you and me, we simply operate on different, irreconcilable assumptions.

sam: Reality is much larger than the physical world yet you want to take a physical principle and project it everywhere. Why do you want to do that?

David: Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.

So, not physical, not mental, yet here you are talking about it. We are discussing an idea, aren't we?

While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.

Again, you put it in the world of Platonic forms. And you don't see this as a point of view?

sam: Causation is about the physical world. Do you really think reality is limited to the physical? Have you ever been unconscious? What is causation to the unconscious?

David: A dead body rolled into a grave, rotting away, becoming food for other lifeforms ...... and yet all along, the dead body caused to be unaware of all this.

Causation arises within consciousness, not the other way around.

Knowing now that causation is not just limited to the physical world, but extends to all realms, are you now able to see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens?

No. I see you projecting your imagination into all possible worlds. I see you doing this without any evidence at all, and in fact, in contradiction to your own experience with dreams. The power of belief is exemplified in your ironclad attachment to causation.

[samadhi]

David,

David: Everybody makes judgments, including yourself. Including the Buddha. Including Adya. It is a natural function of the mind.

sam: The question is, is the judgment about evidence or is it about one's own internal processes? Is it prompted by dispassion or disagreement? Is the judgment intended to disparage or denigrate as opposed to elucidate? Does it moralize over another person's ideas and motives?

David: Sure. In my opinion, the judgments I have made in the recent past are based in evidence and dispassionately reflect the truth. I have no reason to think otherwise.

I'm sure this is how you think. But let's try to be objective. Assessing another's spiritual ambition, love of truth, mental health? Do you think that you are God that you can do this with absolute certainty based on a few words of theirs? Even I can't assess my own spiritual ambition, love of truth or mental health in relation to any objective standard! I can tell you what I think about them, but so what? My opinion may reflect a more accurate understanding but to judge them, good or bad, worthy or unworthy, unaffected or not, it's nonsense. Why would you want to do that for someone else? Do you think there is some objective standard and you got it? Why would you think that?

That you personally don't like a lot of the judgments I make and want to depict them as "disparagements" is irrelevant. You would need to produce some proper evidence that my judgments have been wrong, if you want to me reconsider them. Your fall-back routine of putting on a matronly voice and wagging your finger disapprovingly isn't enough.

Look, you are going to judge others regardless of what I say. It isn't about me reprimanding you (although the drawbacks of doing it are pretty obvious) but just pointing out that blame is a part of your equation like everyone else's. Do you see how that is treating people as free agents or not?

In any case, the same questions can just as easily be asked of you. For example, is your judgment that all I do is disparage people simply a disparagement of me?

I brought it up in relation to causation. If you preach causation, which you do, it makes no sense to judge other people no matter what they say or do as it is just a matter of cause and effect. You are a big believer in logic and that is as logical as it gets. You seem to understand it is a contradiction but not when it applies to you. Do you see the difference in saying, "this guy has no spirituality" and "I don't see the spirituality in this guy"? One is about judgment, the other is about discernment.

If a particular person, such as an Alex or a Laird, cannot see the great truths of life, which are so obvious and staring at him in the face, then clearly there is a problem. There are mental blocks at play. Assessing exactly what the problem is constitutes the very first step towards resolving it. Becaused of this, the ability to judge is absolutely critical to spiritual development.

Whatever Alex, Laird or I see in life is simply what we see under causation. That is YOUR idea. Then you take that idea and say, "there is something wrong with your seeing, you are missing the great truths of life." No, there is nothing wrong with what we see under causation. We see what we're caused to see. That's it. There is no great truth, there is only what you see. Judging people for what they see presupposes they could see something other than what they see. How could they if they are caused to see what they see?

Your point about judgment being critical to spiritual development is fine if one is believed to be in control. In such case, by all means, exercise good judgment. But under causation, there is no control. That is why I say the emphasis must be on surrender, not control. Let go of the idea that I must make a right choice. Let cause and effect do its thing. Sure, you'll choose but the choice isn't about being right, it's about surrendering to whatever happens. You aren't in control.

sam: It is not your place to judge other's spiritual development, mental health or love of truth.

David: And yet you are more than happy to judge others with respect to these things.

I haven't judged you on a moral level. I have judged your discernment to be lacking based on your ability to judge others as responsible for their actions while insisting on absolute causation. I guess I do find your obtuseness on that contradiction to be a character flaw. My bad. But of course, I don't subscribe to absolute causation.

As I say, we all do it - you, me, Buddha, Adya, everyone. To mentally recognize what is before us - whether it be a person or an object, or the level of mental or spiritual development in the person before us - is a natural function of the mind. To interfere with this natural functioning out of an attachment to conventional moralizing or false humility is a form of madness. I will never be a party to this.

Again, there is a difference between judging someone with disparagement and simply discerning some difference. Do you see the difference between calling an adult a sex-obsessed teenager as opposed to observing that their interests are not yours? You achieve the same thing without the rancor.

If truth be told, I'm just doing openly what you do underhandedly behind that moral pose of yours.

This whole thing isn't about me judging you. It is about the contradiction of judging others and adhering to strict causation. As a man of logic, surely that is worth your consideration. Even beyond that, judging others is problematic. Could you be wrong? Could you be prejudiced? Could you be misunderstanding? Could you be trying to justify your own ideas? Yes, I have done it but I don't make it a point to beat anyone up apart from actually quoting them. I quoted you. In all your judgments, there is no quote of what anyone said, only your curt dismissals. It reeks of superiority.

sam: You have no access to anything other than their words and as I'm sure you're aware, the meaning of words rests with the person speaking them, not with the person hearing them.

David: True, one has to be extra careful. But even within words, consistent patterns can emerge over time and a psychological profile of the author can take shape.

Of course, but the profile will always be of your interpretation. I know you always want to trust it but can you always trust it?

sam: Disparaging others is simply about judgment, it's not about truth.

David: At the same time, an unflattering assessment is not necessarily a disparagement, but could be an expression of truth.

There are always shades of grey. Sex-obsessed teenager is not a very subtle shade however.

It is in your ego's interests to interpret every unflattering judgment as a disparagement, but in my judgment such undiscriminating behaviour is a very unintelligent way to go about things and certainly has nothing to do with spirituality.

How am I supposed to read your intent when you say I am mentally ill? We disagreed, we misunderstood, we did not connect. But suddenly I am mentally ill? Why the need to jump to so harsh a conclusion if not to invalidate me in some way?

So what do you make of those quotes by Jesus? Do you consider them to be dispassionate judgments of a pure mind, or a collection of disparaging put-downs borne of his own egotism?

Jesus lived in a political environment. No doubt there was some politics in play. It's also quite likely that the passages were a product of the scribe rather than Jesus himself. After all, nothing was written down at the time, only decades and centuries later were the books compiled. And I've heard even living sources aren't always the paragons of virtue we would like them to be. Sapius told me about visiting Nisargadatta and what a crank he could be.