Love

[Kunga]

Non-dual truth is thus a reference to indivisible truth. Truth without a countering non-truth.

Cahoot La :)

Is that true or did you make that up ? lol

if i was really wise i'd be silent.

Have we defined TRUTH yet ?
What's TRUE now can be FALSE later.
So TRUTH is relative ?

Sometimes when i think i understand something....i find out i didn't understand a thing. But i thought it was the TRUTH at the time.

[Cahoot]

Kunga wrote:
“Sometimes when i think i understand something....i find out i didn't understand a thing. But i thought it was the TRUTH at the time.”

How true. :)

Conceptual thought perceives contradictions and derives the label “lies” from the perceived contradictions.

The truth of nature is non-dualistic. Contradictions don’t exist in nature.

[Kunga]

The truth of nature is non-dualistic. Contradictions don’t exist in nature.

Can you please give an example ?

i can understand how an Earthquake is natural and how could a Natural Earthquake have a contradiction....is that what you mean by nature is non-dualistic ?

Like this ?

"One should emulate the great earth. All Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, devas and human beings tread upon the earth, but the earth does not rejoice because of this. When the sheep, oxen, ants, etc., tread upon it, the earth does not become angry. Adorned with jewelry or rare fragrances, the earth does not give rise to greed. Bearing excrement and foul smells, the earth does not exhibit hatred or disgust. The unconditioned Mind is without mind, beyond form. All sentient beings and Buddhas are not different; the Perfectly Awakened Mind is thus."

(Huang Po)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

feeling/tasteing no difference between eatting shit or fresh food

I wonder if my dog is enlightened... ;-)

[Kunga]

I wonder if my dog is enlightened... ;-)

Mu


Consider the famous 'Mu koan'. A monk asked Master Joshu: "Does a dog have Buddha-nature?" Joshu replied: "Mu." Doctrinally, its answer is 'yes' as all beings can evolve towards enlightenment (Buddha-nature). But Joshu deliberately does not answer with an unequivocal 'yes' or 'no' so as to demolish the monk's dependence on scriptural logic. 'Mu' is the Chinese ideogram for 'nothing' which might also be interpreted as 'no-thing' or emptiness. With a single syllable, Joshu has revealed no-thingness as the core of existence.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The wink at the end was placed there to indicate an attempt at a joke, referencing not feeling/tasting a difference between shit and fresh food as a sign of enlightenment.

[Cahoot]

Kunga wrote:

Cahoot wrote:
The truth of nature is non-dualistic. Contradictions don’t exist in nature.

Can you please give an example ?

i can understand how an Earthquake is natural and how could a Natural Earthquake have a contradiction....is that what you mean by nature is non-dualistic ?

Like this ?

"One should emulate the great earth. All Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, devas and human beings tread upon the earth, but the earth does not rejoice because of this. When the sheep, oxen, ants, etc., tread upon it, the earth does not become angry. Adorned with jewelry or rare fragrances, the earth does not give rise to greed. Bearing excrement and foul smells, the earth does not exhibit hatred or disgust. The unconditioned Mind is without mind, beyond form. All sentient beings and Buddhas are not different; the Perfectly Awakened Mind is thus."

(Huang Po)

You gave a good example, Kunga. Thank you.

Taking into account the rest of the premise:

Conceptual thought perceives contradictions and derives the label “lies” from the perceived contradictions.

The truth of nature is non-dualistic. Contradictions don’t exist in nature.

Then, examples are everywhere.

Such as in this thread. In this thread, David’s posts have repeatedly pointed towards resolving the illusion of contradiction.

In another thread, don Pincho Paxton references Heisenberg’s slit experiment, which is a classic conundrum of perceived contradiction.

Even Elizabeth Isabelle’s tongue-in-cheek contemplation of the shit-eating grin on her dog ;-) gets to it.

[steviedisco]

Love everything unconditionally and we will all be fine, omniverse-wide.

[Carl G]

Love everything unconditionally and we will all be fine, omniverse-wide.

You mean ground fine? Like in the mills of God?

The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedlingly fine, fine?

Anyway, that's a huge set of "ifs" you put forth there. If we all can love...everything...unconditionally...

[IJesusChrist]

steviedisco, the wisest man listens to his own advice.

And the wisest man, can, listen to his own advice.

I used to practice the ignorance of pain - stubbing a toe and not feeling pain, but rather just feeling it. It really worked wonders, and actually ... if the control of pain were mastered - one could eat whatever one wants, without spitting it out, or discomfort.

As for TRUTH.

The truth is, we can never know truth, we can approach 100% accuracy, precision, and fact, but we can never reach it. Thusly, we can only prove things wrong - 0% is always an option.

But is that true?

[Kunga]

The wink at the end was placed there to indicate an attempt at a joke, referencing not feeling/tasting a difference between shit and fresh food as a sign of enlightenment.

LOL...sometimes it's hard to accurately read body language : )

[David Quinn]

The truth is, we can never know truth, we can approach 100% accuracy, precision, and fact, but we can never reach it. Thusly, we can only prove things wrong - 0% is always an option.

But is that true?

It's certainly very popular. You do realize that you are echoing one of the dominant myths of our age......? Every kid and his dog falls for it nowadays.

The truth is, we can know countless truths with 100% accuracy. Mathematical truths, logical truths, definitional truths, existential truths - there are an infinite number of them.

The key to being a great thinker is knowing how to ferret out the most important ones, the ones that cut deepest and apply to every aspect of one's existence, the ones that everyone wants to avoid.

-

[IJesusChrist]

David I suppose you're correct -

I would like to say this though, according to quantum computing - to know something as absolute truth, you must become the subject being analyzed, if you wanted to know all of the information about planet earth, you would need a computer the size of planet earth. This makes logical sense, but it also says that if we want to know everything, and that everything we think is true really is true, we need a computer the size of the universe to make a perfect analysis of truth, from all perspectives, time frames, and spatial frames.

But, I now realize my post was in haste - and that mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 is always going to be true. In this universe.

[David Quinn]

David I suppose you're correct -

I would like to say this though, according to quantum computing - to know something as absolute truth, you must become the subject being analyzed, if you wanted to know all of the information about planet earth, you would need a computer the size of planet earth. This makes logical sense, but it also says that if we want to know everything, and that everything we think is true really is true, we need a computer the size of the universe to make a perfect analysis of truth, from all perspectives, time frames, and spatial frames.

Even a computer the size of earth wouldn't be able to know everything about the earth, because of the fact that a computer, like the human brain, requires information in order to perform its computations, and information can only ever come in discrete packages with bits left out, so to speak.

In other words, as soon as you make a measurement, no matter how precise, you are introducing gaps in what is possible to know. A measurement, by its very nature, is an approximation. And an approximation automatically means bits are being left out. This is why, for example, long-range weather forecasting is always problematical, as the measurements it relies on are approximations. The slight errors resulting from these approximations multiply exponentially over time, making long-term predictions near impossible.

So there are inherent limitations about what can be known about the world in a scientific or empirical sense. However, none of this applies to philosophical knowledge, which is more concerned with underlying principles than it is with mapping zillions of details.

But, I now realize my post was in haste - and that mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 is always going to be true. In this universe.

In all universes.

I like the way you can acknowledge your errors. It shows that your mind is open and that you value truth to a high degree, even above your own pride. That's pretty rare.

-

[steviedisco]

There may very well be a universe in which 2+2 = 5

[steviedisco]

haha - there be beasties here!

[David Quinn]

Let's see how David acknowledges his own errors, eg. ---"All universes"?! Which ones are they David? Or are you just being poetic again? You've got to learn to be more careful with that there poetry stuff!

It was a way of saying that 2+2 can never not equal 4, given our current definitions of these mathematical terms.

There may very well be a universe in which 2+2 = 5

Only if one or more of the terms (i.e. 2, 5, + or =) are defined differently from the way they are now.

-

[IJesusChrist]

Well in another universe, laws of ours don't have to be there... change one law, everything changes, and nothing is the same, thus is chaos theory.

And for David again,

A book I read which was, I believe, titled "Quantum Computing" stated that if you want to know everything about an object, or a subject, the computer must hold the exact number of particles within the subject's system. This doesn't mean that if you wanted to build a car via 3D-software, you would need a quantume computer the size of a car - it means that if you wanted to know everything about that car, i.e. every possible state it could be in at any given time, you must have the computer as big as the car.

This brings up a very amazing possibility; we create a quantum computer as large as the earth, and encode everything we know about the earth, with alot of programming, we have simulated the earth exactly. Add on some more hardware and memory and we can compute the future and past of the earth (with some probability issues - since we don't know whats going on outside of Earth.) Thuse everyone knows how they will die & such, to some extent, if there were no outside influences acting on Earth.

Extreme!!!!!

[David Quinn]

Well in another universe, laws of ours don't have to be there... change one law, everything changes, and nothing is the same, thus is chaos theory.

Changes in scientific laws have no impact on the nature of logic.

And for David again,

A book I read which was, I believe, titled "Quantum Computing" stated that if you want to know everything about an object, or a subject, the computer must hold the exact number of particles within the subject's system. This doesn't mean that if you wanted to build a car via 3D-software, you would need a quantume computer the size of a car - it means that if you wanted to know everything about that car, i.e. every possible state it could be in at any given time, you must have the computer as big as the car.

The only way this could happen is by building a computer that is an exact replica of the car, in which case it would cease being a computer.

This brings up a very amazing possibility; we create a quantum computer as large as the earth, and encode everything we know about the earth, with alot of programming, we have simulated the earth exactly. Add on some more hardware and memory and we can compute the future and past of the earth (with some probability issues - since we don't know whats going on outside of Earth.) Thuse everyone knows how they will die & such, to some extent, if there were no outside influences acting on Earth.

"To some extent" is the operative phrase here. It doesn't matter how large or sophisticated a computer is, it will always be denied the complete set of information needed to make 100% accurate predictions - because (a) packages of information, by their very nature, are necessarily incomplete, and (b) the computer's ignorance of potential outside influences beyond its field of view.

Even a conscious Almighty God, should it exist, is in the same boat. The future is inherently unpredictable to everyone and everything.

Your "Quantum Computing" book is pulling the wool over your eyes.

-

[IJesusChrist]

mmm, I think you should read more about quantum computing, as I should too before we take this discussion any further.