God and Logic

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Brian wrote:
BT: Anyway, if one understands the nature of water, they should be able to map and describe every possible shape that water could form, don't you think? Are you able to?

DQ: No, that is literally impossible - for any of us. But as I say, from a philosophic perspective, it is also unnecessary.

BT: Then you don't know all about God. God is the totality of all that exists. You don't know all about it if you can't do one pretty simple thing compared to the totality. Unnecessary as that ability is, it would be required to be able to say I know all about God. If you meant, I know much about God, correct me. I'm mainly taking issue with the word all.
You're not really tuning into what I am saying. These shapes, these empirical details, these endless forms of God - none of them have any objective or inherent existence. They are fundamentally illusions. No different to mirages. Ultimately, there is nothing to know. When you understand this, you suddenly become omniscient and understand God in his entirety.

DQ: I agree with what Lao Tzu says:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.


BT: Does Lao Tzu say you can know all about God without knowing all about God?

He just said it.

Is that the Zen of Theology?
It's a fundamental philosophic point, upon which all wisdom turns.

So you think that a person born in a closet and confined there without ever going outside can know the whole world?

Yes, absolutely. Even a closet-dweller can become enlightened and realize the whole nature of God, which manifests the same way everywhere - both in his closet and everywhere else.

God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.

While I don't know any such person, it is very hard to believe they can know the whole world. They wouldn't know me, for example, because they aren't me. And since I'm in the world, they wouldn't know the whole world.
He would know that no part of you is ultimately real.

DQ: That's true. Luckily, the fundamental nature of God is identical to the fundamental nature of ourselves.

BT: What do you mean by our "fundamental nature"?

Our underlying infinite nature, which is the same infinite nature that underlies everything else. God is the doer of all things. He causes everything to happen, including our every behaviour and thought. In a very real sense, "we" are not even there. There is only God.

The will of God is what I call the teleological imperitive or objective directive. I can do no more than speak from personal experience on that one. Not expecting to convince you but I can mirror you in saying that it's clear to me that God has will.

I think you're just making this up. There is no such thing as evidence for a "teleological imperative". It is literally impossible for such evidence to exist, for whatever you decide to choose as evidence, it can always be dismissed as nothing more than a little pocket of purpose within the larger purposelessness of the Universe. There is no way around this.

In any case, it doesn't really mean anything to say that God/Totality has a purpose. What could the Totality possibly strive for? It is already everything. What more could it want?

Of course, we can talk, poetically, about God's will. Wise people sometimes use the term to mean causality. God "determines" everything that happens via the process of cause and effect. But, as I say, this is just poetry. It's not meant to imply that God is a thinking being with intentions, hopes and desires. Not only is that very anthropomorphic, but it makes a mockery of what God really is.

-
BrianT
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:29 am

Post by BrianT »

You're not really tuning into what I am saying. These shapes, these empirical details, these endless forms of God - none of them have any objective or inherent existence. They are fundamentally illusions. No different to mirages. Ultimately, there is nothing to know. When you understand this, you suddenly become omniscient and understand God in his entirety.
Then God does not exist. God is the totality of all that exists. If nothing exists, there is no totality.

Illusions exist. They're just illusions. A mirage exists on some level.

Since you think the words you're reading are illusory, why are you responding to them? Hmm? Masturbation, perhaps?
Yes, absolutely. Even a closet-dweller can become enlightened and realize the whole nature of God, which manifests the same way everywhere - both in his closet and everywhere else.
The closet dweller would not know me and therefore would not be aware of me and therefore not know the world. He can know the nature of the world, but not the world.
God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.
Then the totality of all that exists is akin to the empty set. If you think you're unreal, then what prevents you from killing yourself and/or everyone else? Why preserve life if it's unreal? Actually a person can't be omniscient. Knowing some superficial nature of God, maybe a thousand facets of God, does not suddenly give someone knoweldge enough to know everything.

He would know that no part of you is ultimately real.
That means nothing. He doesn't know me, or about me. He knows nothing about me; therefore, he would not be omniscient. Knowing one single property of me, that I'm an illusion, does not mean he knows me or anything else about me.

Our underlying infinite nature, which is the same infinite nature that underlies everything else. God is the doer of all things. He causes everything to happen, including our every behaviour and thought. In a very real sense, "we" are not even there. There is only God.
So illusions have an underlying infinite nature? What is the underlying nature of something that doesn't exist, something that is unreal?
...none of them have any objective or inherent existence.
If so and if our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature, then God is an illusion. Do you believe God is an illusion?

I think you're just making this up. There is no such thing as evidence for a "teleological imperative". It is literally impossible for such evidence to exist, for whatever you decide to choose as evidence, it can always be dismissed as nothing more than a little pocket of purpose within the larger purposelessness of the Universe. There is no way around this.
Anything you say or any evidence you have for your omniscience (lol) can also always be dismissed as nothing more than a little piece of the TOTALITY OF ALL THAT EXISTS. "There is no way around this."
In any case, it doesn't really mean anything to say that God/Totality has a purpose. What could the Totality possibly strive for? It is already everything. What more could it want?
Just because your limited imagination can't fathom what the purpose might be, that doesn't provide a good reason that there is no purpose.
--Brian
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Brian wrote:
DQ: You're not really tuning into what I am saying. These shapes, these empirical details, these endless forms of God - none of them have any objective or inherent existence. They are fundamentally illusions. No different to mirages. Ultimately, there is nothing to know. When you understand this, you suddenly become omniscient and understand God in his entirety.

BT: Then God does not exist. God is the totality of all that exists. If nothing exists, there is no totality.

Well, strictly speaking, God neither exists, nor not exists. Both categories are inapplicable when it comes to God.

Obviously, God is clearly not nothing whatsoever, as we can see from the world around us. So we can dismiss that possibility altogether. But yet, at the same time, He is not something which can be said to exist. Only finite things - i.e. things with boundaries that enable them to be distinguished from other things - are capable of "existence". God, the totality, doesn't posses this capacity, by definition.

This is why the Buddha sometimes used to refer to Reality as being "unborn".

Illusions exist. They're just illusions. A mirage exists on some level.
Yes, things do have a certain kind of existence, but not the kind that is normally imagined by people.


Since you think the words you're reading are illusory, why are you responding to them?
God makes me.

DQ: Yes, absolutely. Even a closet-dweller can become enlightened and realize the whole nature of God, which manifests the same way everywhere - both in his closet and everywhere else.

BT: The closet dweller would not know me and therefore would not be aware of me and therefore not know the world. He can know the nature of the world, but not the world.

The nature of the world is literally everything.

DQ: God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.

BT: Then the totality of all that exists is akin to the empty set.
No, not at all. The manifestations and variations that we see all around us are part of the oneness of Reality. The "empty set" of God is literally the world and all its infinite diversity.

In other words, Reality is indeed "one", but this oneness is nothing other than the countless phenomena all around us.


If you think you're unreal, then what prevents you from killing yourself and/or everyone else? Why preserve life if it's unreal?
Why destroy it?

DQ: ...none of them have any objective or inherent existence.

BT: If so and if our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature, then God is an illusion. Do you believe God is an illusion?

No. I realize that God is neither illusory, nor real.

DQ: I think you're just making this up. There is no such thing as evidence for a "teleological imperative". It is literally impossible for such evidence to exist, for whatever you decide to choose as evidence, it can always be dismissed as nothing more than a little pocket of purpose within the larger purposelessness of the Universe. There is no way around this.

BT: Anything you say or any evidence you have for your omniscience (lol) can also always be dismissed as nothing more than a little piece of the TOTALITY OF ALL THAT EXISTS. "There is no way around this."
The evidence I have provided has been in the form of tight logical reasoning. What do you offer?

For example, I have shown that any evidence which seems to indicate that the Totality has a "purpose" is necessarily unreliable, as it will always be impossible to determine that this evidence does indeed apply to the Totality and not just to some limited realm within the Totality.

You might stumble upon some evidence, for example, which suggests that the observeable universe is deliberately heading towards some kind of final outcome, but how do you know that this applies to the Totality itself, and not just to this tiny, little bubble of space-time that we call the "observable universe"? There is no way of knowing. This is not to mention the possibility that you may well be hallucinating this evidence in the first place.

No, the belief that the Totality has some kind of purpose is nothing more than an article of blind faith.

DQ: In any case, it doesn't really mean anything to say that God/Totality has a purpose. What could the Totality possibly strive for? It is already everything. What more could it want?

BT: Just because your limited imagination can't fathom what the purpose might be, that doesn't provide a good reason that there is no purpose.

It's a logical point. In order for an entity to formulate some kind of purpose, it needs to experience some sort of lack. It needs to feel incomplete in some way. And so I ask, how can the Totality possibly experience lack or incompleteness?

Another reason why the Totality doesn't have a purpose is because it is entirely composed of the process of cause and effect. All things are generated by their causes, which means that they are fundamentally generated in a blind, non-intentional way. They always have been and always will be.

-
unknown
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:59 am

Post by unknown »

Hi quinn,

Your evidence is your babble. when are you going to see that?. Learn to separate yourself from your argument, you will be able to see your babble and the belief it is based on.

Keep babbling until your energy runs out. Thats all you do.
BrianT
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:29 am

Post by BrianT »

Well, strictly speaking, God neither exists, nor not exists. Both categories are inapplicable when it comes to God.
I disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
Obviously, God is clearly not nothing whatsoever, as we can see from the world around us. So we can dismiss that possibility altogether. But yet, at the same time, He is not something which can be said to exist. Only finite things - i.e. things with boundaries that enable them to be distinguished from other things - are capable of "existence". God, the totality, doesn't posses this capacity, by definition.
Why are only finite things with boundaries capable of existence. God is infinite only if the totality of all that exists is infinite. Just curious: how do you know, especially with your limited definition/criteria of existence, that God is indeed infinite? The boundary of God would be the line that separates the real from the unreal.

This is why the Buddha sometimes used to refer to Reality as being "unborn".
I think he means that it did not come into being.
Yes, things do have a certain kind of existence, but not the kind that is normally imagined by people.
God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.
By definition, that which is unreal does not exist. You contradict yourself unless by "things" you meant to include God.
God makes me.
I have to assume, despite what it seems like, that you're again being deadly serious. What is the mechanism for the totality of all that exists for influencing your behavior?
No, not at all. The manifestations and variations that we see all around us are part of the oneness of Reality. The "empty set" of God is literally the world and all its infinite diversity.
What do you mean by diversity? According to you an infinite thing cannot be defined.
Why destroy it?
Because God makes you. I just don't see believing that everybody is an illusion as a very healthy reality to live in. There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from injuring an illusion. Truth is that while my exterior is an illusion, where what you see of my exterior is just these words, the true me is 100% real. (Or just "real" if you don't believe the reality of something can vary between 0 and 100%.)

BT: If so and if our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature, then God is an illusion. Do you believe God is an illusion?

No. I realize that God is neither illusory, nor real. [/quote]
Then we are neither illusory nor real since our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature. Then why did you say this:
God alone is real, everything else is unreal.
I'd say that we are included in "everything else" for you and I are clearly not the totality of all that exists. How can our fundamental nature be the same as God's if we are unreal and God is real? Anyway, you first say God alone is real and then you say God is neither illusory *nor real*. Care to explain your contradiction?
The evidence I have provided has been in the form of tight logical reasoning. What do you offer?
Evidence for what? That God is the only real thing yet also not real? And then somewhere else, that God is neither real nor unreal? Is this what "logical reasoning" is?
For example, I have shown that any evidence which seems to indicate that the Totality has a "purpose" is necessarily unreliable, as it will always be impossible to determine that this evidence does indeed apply to the Totality and not just to some limited realm within the Totality.
Why are some people so dependent on evidence? Don't you know that there are true statements out there that are unprovable?
You might stumble upon some evidence, for example, which suggests that the observeable universe is deliberately heading towards some kind of final outcome, but how do you know that this applies to the Totality itself, and not just to this tiny, little bubble of space-time that we call the "observable universe"? There is no way of knowing. This is not to mention the possibility that you may well be hallucinating this evidence in the first place.
This is insignificant once you understand the nature of God. I am omniscient though I don't know anything about specifics. LOL
No, the belief that the Totality has some kind of purpose is nothing more than an article of blind faith.
Actually, if God is making you do something, then you have a purpose. There's no higher purpose than serving God.

It's a logical point. In order for an entity to formulate some kind of purpose, it needs to experience some sort of lack. It needs to feel incomplete in some way. And so I ask, how can the Totality possibly experience lack or incompleteness?
No. In order for an entity *you understand*, it must experience some kind of lack to have purpose. Have you demonstrated that all entities require lack to have purpose? You can't use any entities you are familiar with as an *analogy* because God is not comparable to any entity. Your analogy fails.
Another reason why the Totality doesn't have a purpose is because it is entirely composed of the process of cause and effect. All things are generated by their causes, which means that they are fundamentally generated in a blind, non-intentional way. They always have been and always will be.
Is God a thing?
--Brian
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Brian,
DQ: Obviously, God is clearly not nothing whatsoever, as we can see from the world around us. So we can dismiss that possibility altogether. But yet, at the same time, He is not something which can be said to exist. Only finite things - i.e. things with boundaries that enable them to be distinguished from other things - are capable of "existence". God, the totality, doesn't posses this capacity, by definition.

BT: Why are only finite things with boundaries capable of existence.
Because existence can only rise through contrast. For example, a black bird on a white canvas exists only by virtue of the contrast between it and the canvass. A black bird on a black canvas would disappear entirely. It would literally cease to exist. This is a rather simple analogy, but I'm sure you get the point.

Now, since God is the totality of all there is, there is nothing, by definition, which is external to Him. There is nothing there to create the contrast which would give Him existence. And so I can say, with the utmost conviction, that God doesn't really exist. Again, this is not to say that God is nothing whatsoever, for that is not true either.

God is infinite only if the totality of all that exists is infinite. Just curious: how do you know, especially with your limited definition/criteria of existence, that God is indeed infinite? The boundary of God would be the line that separates the real from the unreal.

God is necessarily infinite by virtue of the fact that He is the totality of all there is. Thus, by definition, there cannot be a boundary that marks where God ends and something else begins.

DQ: This is why the Buddha sometimes used to refer to Reality as being "unborn".

BT: I think he means that it did not come into being.
That's right. It never came into existence. It is "unborn and uncreate", as the Buddha used to say. And because it has never come into existence, it can never go out of existence either. It is timeless, indestructible, beyond life and death.

DQ: Yes, things do have a certain kind of existence, but not the kind that is normally imagined by people.

DQ: God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.

BT: By definition, that which is unreal does not exist. You contradict yourself unless by "things" you meant to include God.

Or there is another way - namely, affirming the obvious truth that all things lack any kind of ultimate existence. God Himself is not a "thing", and thus the limitations of being finite and in existence don't apply to Him.

DQ: God makes me.

BT: have to assume, despite what it seems like, that you're again being deadly serious. What is the mechanism for the totality of all that exists for influencing your behavior?

The mechanism is my causes, which are countless in number as they stretch out into the rest of Nature and lose themselves in the beginningless past.

DQ: No, not at all. The manifestations and variations that we see all around us are part of the oneness of Reality. The "empty set" of God is literally the world and all its infinite diversity.

BT: What do you mean by diversity? According to you an infinite thing cannot be defined.

I don't know what you mean. The definition of "infinite" is very specific - it means not finite, not possessing a beginning/end.

As for "diversity", I was using the common meaning.

Each and every thing in existence is unique in its own form and structure - and yet, at the same time, each of these unique structures has been created by the process of cause and effect, a process which is the same everywhere, eternal, unchanging, and relentlessly creative.

BT: If you think you're unreal, then what prevents you from killing yourself and/or everyone else? Why preserve life if it's unreal?

DQ: Why destroy it?

BT: Because God makes you.

Very good, you're catching on. We'll make a sage out of you in no time.

Yes, we do whatever God makes us do. Ultimately, we have no say in the matter ..... unless, of course, God makes us have a say in it. But even then, we don't really have say in it.

I just don't see believing that everybody is an illusion as a very healthy reality to live in. There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from injuring an illusion.
Well, I am strongly commited to the goal of preserving wisdom in the world. It's what I have chosen as the most important thing in life, and all my other values stem from this. Thus, I have a strong motivation not to destroy life, for I recognize that without life there can be no wisdom.

Truth is that while my exterior is an illusion, where what you see of my exterior is just these words, the true me is 100% real. (Or just "real" if you don't believe the reality of something can vary between 0 and 100%.)
I'm afraid your interior is just as much an illusion as your exterior is. The only thing real about you is your God-nature and that can't be discerned, either in your inner life or your external environment, without deep knowledge and insight. When a person does manage to acquire this knowledge and insight, he can see God's nature in everything. Until then, it remains invisible.

BT: If so and if our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature, then God is an illusion. Do you believe God is an illusion?

DQ: No. I realize that God is neither illusory, nor real.

BT: Then we are neither illusory nor real since our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature.
That's right, yes.

Then why did you say this:
Quote:
God alone is real, everything else is unreal.

It's just a different way of pointing to the same truth. The reason why we are neither illusory nor real is because we are entirely composed of God, who is Himself neither real nor illusory.

In other words, the perception that things are discrete and objectively real, with sharp boundaries, is an illusion. In reality, things have no beginning or end. Nature is a seamless continuum and our own non-existence (in an ultimate sense) is a part of that.

I'd say that we are included in "everything else" for you and I are clearly not the totality of all that exists. How can our fundamental nature be the same as God's if we are unreal and God is real?
As I say, we have no beginning or end. That is why our finite existence is unreal, and why our real nature is nothing other than the infinite nature of God.

Anyway, you first say God alone is real and then you say God is neither illusory *nor real*. Care to explain your contradiction?
As mentioned above, they are different ways of pointing to the same fundamental fact of Nature. The statement that God is neither real nor illusory is a more advanced truth, and really only suitable for those who are experienced enough in philosophic thinking to process it properly.

The other statement - "God alone is real, everything else is illusory" - is more for beginners. It helps them conceptualize the Totality correctly and gives them a solid basis for making further intellectual progress. But you shouldn't think that the two statements contradict each other. Properly understood, they don't.

DQ: The evidence I have provided has been in the form of tight logical reasoning. What do you offer?

BT: Evidence for what? That God is the only real thing yet also not real? And then somewhere else, that God is neither real nor unreal? Is this what "logical reasoning" is?
You haven't grasped the reasoning yet, but I assure you it is very tight.

DQ: For example, I have shown that any evidence which seems to indicate that the Totality has a "purpose" is necessarily unreliable, as it will always be impossible to determine that this evidence does indeed apply to the Totality and not just to some limited realm within the Totality.

BT: Why are some people so dependent on evidence? Don't you know that there are true statements out there that are unprovable?

If they are not provable, then how do you know they are true? Why even believe in them?

How do you distinguish yourself from the fundamentalist Christian who essentially justifies his beliefs in the same way?

DQ: You might stumble upon some evidence, for example, which suggests that the observeable universe is deliberately heading towards some kind of final outcome, but how do you know that this applies to the Totality itself, and not just to this tiny, little bubble of space-time that we call the "observable universe"? There is no way of knowing. This is not to mention the possibility that you may well be hallucinating this evidence in the first place.

BT: This is insignificant once you understand the nature of God. I am omniscient though I don't know anything about specifics. LOL

You are being evasive. Please address my point.

DQ: No, the belief that the Totality has some kind of purpose is nothing more than an article of blind faith.

BT: Actually, if God is making you do something, then you have a purpose. There's no higher purpose than serving God.
You and I might have a purpose, but God doesn't.

DQ: It's a logical point. In order for an entity to formulate some kind of purpose, it needs to experience some sort of lack. It needs to feel incomplete in some way. And so I ask, how can the Totality possibly experience lack or incompleteness?

BT: No. In order for an entity *you understand*, it must experience some kind of lack to have purpose. Have you demonstrated that all entities require lack to have purpose?
That is literally what having a purpose is - to rectify the perception that something is lacking or incomplete. For example, when an athlete devotes his life towards winning an Olympic Gold medal, it's because he feels incomplete and dissatisfied without it. You can't have one without the other. They are two sides of the same coin.

In any case, I still don't understand why you have arbitrarily decided to believe that the Totality has a purpose. You've already ruled out the possibility of evidence for it (and rightly so), so why make that choice?

Is it just for amusement or something?


You can't use any entities you are familiar with as an *analogy* because God is not comparable to any entity. Your analogy fails.
And yet here you are, happily comparing God to a living being that has will and purpose.

It's ironical, but I am actually doing what you suggest here. I am stripping away from God all comparisons to other things - including that of having existence, non-existence, reality, illusoriness, will, purpose etc. And yet all throughout this discussion you have been squealing in protest at this stripping away, simply because you want to hang onto your image of God resembling a conscious being.

-
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:
As I say, we have no beginning or end. That is why our finite existence is unreal, and why our real nature is nothing other than the infinite nature of God.
Sorry for the interruption, but I think it is delusional to even think that we have no beginning or end simply because the underlying real nature of all things is God like. Once you say we, you are referencing a thing, hence it has beginning and an end. And if in some sense we do not have any real existence, then it is obvious that the "we" does not exist, hence only nature does, and at this point it becomes illogical to say that "we" have no beginning or end.

Only Totality and Nature could have no beginning or end, every-thing else, including this "us", does have a beginning and an end; it is quite simply egotistical to think of "us" actually having any thing to do with infinite existence. In fact I think it is a philosophical and logical blasphemy to think we actually have no beginning or end.

Everything together may have the underlying nature of God, but anything, individually, is not the nature of God. God could make any logical sense only as a whole, not as bits and pieces.
BrianT
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:29 am

Post by BrianT »

Actually, it wasn't an interruption. I was done.

On some level, I know what Sapius knows but I didn't bother to point it out; I saw no point in doing so nor a point in continuing after DQ just doged the fact that he is self-contradictory on at least one count.

DQ thinks he knows everything about God. That would make him omniscient and he'll have no problem telling you he is omniscient. He thinks someone born in a closet can be omniscient.

I just have a radically different view of omniscient. My view holds that omniscience is total knowledge of everything that exists, including the totality of everything that exists, which exists. This is not just the nature of things or the principles of things as DQ maintains but total knowledge of everything, including the mundane, the specific, the details: all of it.

I agree with you Sapius: our fundamental nature is not the fundamental nature of God.
--Brian
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:
DQ: As I say, we have no beginning or end. That is why our finite existence is unreal, and why our real nature is nothing other than the infinite nature of God.

Sap: Sorry for the interruption, but I think it is delusional to even think that we have no beginning or end simply because the underlying real nature of all things is God like.

Okay, let's go back to basics. Where exactly do you begin?

Once you say we, you are referencing a thing, hence it has beginning and an end. And if in some sense we do not have any real existence, then it is obvious that the "we" does not exist, hence only nature does, and at this point it becomes illogical to say that "we" have no beginning or end.

It's not illogical to say this. Pointing to a tree, or to our own life, or to any finite phenomenon, and explaining that it has no beginning or end is an effective way to awaken people to the great truth that nothing really exists.

Only Totality and Nature could have no beginning or end, every-thing else, including this "us", does have a beginning and an end; it is quite simply egotistical to think of "us" actually having any thing to do with infinite existence.
It's even more egotistical to impose your own existence upon the seamlessness of Reality. It's an act of violence against God, a case of chopping Him up and disfiguring Him beyond all recognition.

In fact I think it is a philosophical and logical blasphemy to think we actually have no beginning or end.
I ask again, where exactly do you begin and end?

Everything together may have the underlying nature of God, but anything, individually, is not the nature of God. God could make any logical sense only as a whole, not as bits and pieces.
If you cannot see the whole of God a little speck of dust, or in a plastic bag, or in a star, or in your own existence, then you are not seeing God at all.

-
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Sapius wrote:
DQ: As I say, we have no beginning or end. That is why our finite existence is unreal, and why our real nature is nothing other than the infinite nature of God.

Sap: Sorry for the interruption, but I think it is delusional to even think that we have no beginning or end simply because the underlying real nature of all things is God like.

Okay, let's go back to basics. Where exactly do you begin?


Sure, to the basics then. Good question, but I hope you understand my answer.

Personally, I begin the moment I'm self-convincingly certain that “I” do not inherently exist. Do I need say more? On the other hand, philosophically speaking, I begin the moment I sense my first perceptions. Could be soon after my conception. I may not consciously remember any of it though. Physically speaking, I certainly begin at the moment of my conception. My temporal existence being connected to infinity through cause and effect does not negate the fact that my form does exist. Any form for that matter. Or are you saying that forms are nothing whatsoever? What is infinite is the connectivity, not the connected, since the connected arise and fade away. It is the arising and fading that is infinite, not what arises and fades. Those are my basics as far as I know.

Once you say we, you are referencing a thing, hence it has beginning and an end. And if in some sense we do not have any real existence, then it is obvious that the "we" does not exist, hence only nature does, and at this point it becomes illogical to say that "we" have no beginning or end.

David: It's not illogical to say this. Pointing to a tree, or to our own life, or to any finite phenomenon, and explaining that it has no beginning or end is an effective way to awaken people to the great truth that nothing really exists.

So you are saying that it is logical to say it for effectiveness, not that the statement itself is logical. I know you prefer sensationalism. That is your style. I understand and I have no personal objections to that, but sadly that would be speaking only half the truth, and I guess that's all right since you have admitted that even a sage could lie for a greater good.

Only Totality and Nature could have no beginning or end, every-thing else, including this "us", does have a beginning and an end; it is quite simply egotistical to think of "us" actually having any thing to do with infinite existence.
It's even more egotistical to impose your own existence upon the seamlessness of Reality. It's an act of violence against God, a case of chopping Him up and disfiguring Him beyond all recognition.

Have you gone bonkers or something, David? (smile please) Who is chopping up Reality here? Am I? Your statement seems to imply that since I’m considering all the individual forms as God, I’m chopping it up. Where do I say that Forms are like individual Gods, It is you who is implying that? Just take a look at your logic, please. If you have the Nature of God, and obviously every jot or title has it, which incidentally makes you or me no more special than a dried prune, and you say that since all these individual things have infinite nature of God, then all things have an infinite nature! How many Gods are you creating? Can you see that? Underlying nature does not make a-thing anything like God. A thing is not Totality, and Totality is not a thing. The moment you realize and fully comprehend that you do not inherently exist, you see that only God/Tao/Emptiness exists. That’s it. To say that you have the nature of God immediately implies that you are talking about the form that exists, hence you have a beginning and an end, and hence the former part of the statement becomes false. Which is it then?
In fact I think it is a philosophical and logical blasphemy to think we actually have no beginning or end.
I ask again, where exactly do you begin and end?
Please don't make me repeat it. I can try to elaborate further if you like.

Everything together may have the underlying nature of God, but anything, individually, is not the nature of God. God could make any logical sense only as a whole, not as bits and pieces.
If you cannot see the whole of God a little speck of dust, or in a plastic bag, or in a star, or in your own existence, then you are not seeing God at all.
Seeing whole of God in a speck is a different issue entirely, and you have again said only half the truth. IMO, it is not the seeing the whole of God in every form, that’s just a feeling, but logically realizing his existence as a whole while simply experiencing the non-inherently existing speck of dust or a plastic bag at the same time, without giving them any importance or meaning, as in particularly any of them having infinite nature. Don’t you see? They do not even inherently exist, so how could THEY have infinite nature? Only the process could be infinite.

You must have noticed in most of my posts that I do not make much use of the word God because as this post demonstrates, it creates more confusion than clarity, because the definition of God in this context is entirely different. I prefer saying Reality/Nature/Toa/Emptiness or whatever. This keeps my mind clear and does not make me equate or apply the infinite nature of Reality, onto individual non-inherently existing things.
unknown
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:59 am

Post by unknown »

David likes to babble....

YOUR BELIEF VS SOME ONE 'S BELIEF!

Why do you all waste time? MONKEES!.

There is no one belief better than others. You all like mental masturbation. Thats all.

Fools.

Any conclusion you make is yours in order to achieve some energy balance in your brain at the moment of time. Otherwise you will have pain. HAHAHHAA.

Monkees....

Ask questions!

Never agree or disagree. Let it be....

Peace
unknown
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius,
DQ: Okay, let's go back to basics. Where exactly do you begin?

S: Sure, to the basics then. Good question, but I hope you understand my answer.

Personally, I begin the moment I'm self-convincingly certain that “I” do not inherently exist. Do I need say more? On the other hand, philosophically speaking, I begin the moment I sense my first perceptions. Could be soon after my conception. I may not consciously remember any of it though. Physically speaking, I certainly begin at the moment of my conception.
So if we add them up, you've had at least three seperate beginnings ...? You weren't content with just the one?

My temporal existence being connected to infinity through cause and effect does not negate the fact that my form does exist. Any form for that matter. Or are you saying that forms are nothing whatsoever?
No, I'm saying that the forms we see around us have no beginning or end.

These forms may appear to our senses to have a beginning and an end, but this is an illusion. Appearances are often deceiving, we all know that. The sun appears to our senses to orbit the earth.

What is infinite is the connectivity, not the connected, since the connected arise and fade away. It is the arising and fading that is infinite, not what arises and fades. Those are my basics as far as I know.
Okay, but what you have determined to be arising and fading away is purely a mental construction on your part. The Universe is, in reality, a vast sea of causal processes, and every component of this sea - every movement, every interaction, every effect - is just as significant as any other. Whatever boundaries we choose to overlay upon this sea are always going to be imaginary in nature and a product of arbitrary whim. We might decide, for practical purposes, that a tree begins at such and such point and ends at such and such point, but neither of these boundaries represent anything special within the sea of causality. It's still just the same old process of cause and effect which is unfolding.

Sapius: Once you say we, you are referencing a thing, hence it has beginning and an end. And if in some sense we do not have any real existence, then it is obvious that the "we" does not exist, hence only nature does, and at this point it becomes illogical to say that "we" have no beginning or end.

David: It's not illogical to say this. Pointing to a tree, or to our own life, or to any finite phenomenon, and explaining that it has no beginning or end is an effective way to awaken people to the great truth that nothing really exists.

Sapius: So you are saying that it is logical to say it for effectiveness, not that the statement itself is logical.
I'm saying both. The statement is perfectly logical in its own right. Boundaries are always imaginary.

I know you prefer sensationalism. That is your style. I understand and I have no personal objections to that, but sadly that would be speaking only half the truth, and I guess that's all right since you have admitted that even a sage could lie for a greater good.

I prefer to call it stimulation, rather the sensationalism. Spiritual teachings are not designed to be formal logical thesies that only Buddhas can only understand. They are designed, rather, to stimulate ignorant people's minds and point them in the direction of Truth. How these teachings will be expressed will vary, depending on the level of understanding of the listener. What suits one listener often doesn't suit another.

Sapius: Only Totality and Nature could have no beginning or end, every-thing else, including this "us", does have a beginning and an end; it is quite simply egotistical to think of "us" actually having any thing to do with infinite existence.

David: It's even more egotistical to impose your own existence upon the seamlessness of Reality. It's an act of violence against God, a case of chopping Him up and disfiguring Him beyond all recognition.

Sapius: Have you gone bonkers or something, David? (smile please) Who is chopping up Reality here? Am I? Your statement seems to imply that since I’m considering all the individual forms as God, I’m chopping it up. Where do I say that Forms are like individual Gods, It is you who is implying that? Just take a look at your logic, please. If you have the Nature of God, and obviously every jot or title has it, which incidentally makes you or me no more special than a dried prune, and you say that since all these individual things have infinite nature of God, then all things have an infinite nature! How many Gods are you creating?

Just the one. All things share the same infinite nature.

Underlying nature does not make a-thing anything like God. A thing is not Totality, and Totality is not a thing. The moment you realize and fully comprehend that you do not inherently exist, you see that only God/Tao/Emptiness exists. That’s it. To say that you have the nature of God immediately implies that you are talking about the form that exists, hence you have a beginning and an end, and hence the former part of the statement becomes false. Which is it then?
I love your passion! Obviously, you and I don't have the same form as the Totality, and so we cannot do what the Totality does. And yet we both are created out of the very same nature that makes up the Totality. Every aspect of our existence is identical in its formlessness and emptiness, and every aspect of our existence is identical in its formlessness and emptiness to every other aspect of the Totality. In everything that we do, we express the nature of the Totality in its entirety. The whole of creation and the whole of eternity is there in the blinking of our eyes, the picking of our teeth, the yawning and stretching of our limbs, etc.

So yes, our form is not that of the Totality, but nonetheless the essence of the Totality is fully present in every little detail of our being.

Sapius: In fact I think it is a philosophical and logical blasphemy to think we actually have no beginning or end.

David: I ask again, where exactly do you begin and end?

Sapius: Please don't make me repeat it. I can try to elaborate further if you like.
Can you at least narrow it down to one?

David: If you cannot see the whole of God a little speck of dust, or in a plastic bag, or in a star, or in your own existence, then you are not seeing God at all.

Sapius: Seeing whole of God in a speck is a different issue entirely, and you have again said only half the truth. IMO, it is not the seeing the whole of God in every form, that’s just a feeling,

Well, in the enlightened person, it is clear-sighted perception and not really a feeling.

but logically realizing his existence as a whole while simply experiencing the non-inherently existing speck of dust or a plastic bag at the same time, without giving them any importance or meaning, as in particularly any of them having infinite nature. Don’t you see? They do not even inherently exist, so how could THEY have infinite nature? Only the process could be infinite.
It's precisely because they do not inherently exist that they have infinite nature.

You must have noticed in most of my posts that I do not make much use of the word God because as this post demonstrates, it creates more confusion than clarity, because the definition of God in this context is entirely different. I prefer saying Reality/Nature/Toa/Emptiness or whatever. This keeps my mind clear and does not make me equate or apply the infinite nature of Reality, onto individual non-inherently existing things.
Fair enough. A lot of it is personal taste. I like the word "God" because it conveys, at least to my mind, both the void nature of Reality and its creative nature. The word is abstract enough to express the sheer formlessness of everything. But then, words like "Tao" does this just as well.

-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Brian said: I'd say that we are included in "everything else" for you and I are clearly not the totality of all that exists.
Can you advise me of any existence that you are not aware of in some fashion?

No, so therefore we all can say:

I am the totality of all that exists. My fleeting existence is my totality. The only possible form of god that can exist is whatever the current me is, and when what is currently me changes structurally so as to remove my awareness of me, then there will be nothing.

Are you not the same?

I have been caused to exist and will be caused to not exist, yet, at present I exist from the only perspective that is ever possible for a being with some sort of memory, that is that I am the centre of the universe.

God, the totality definitely has a purpose. A part of the definition of purpose is “The quality of being determined to do or achieve something”. The purpose of the totality is creation and destruction of things. It’s purpose is NO different from yours – Whatever is you at any one time is merely a predetermined segment of the predetermined universe. DO not think for a second that intelligence or consciousness is a requirement for purposes – that is just what we choose to think because of delusions about the permanancy of consciousness and free will.

David said: In other words, the perception that things are discrete and objectively real, with sharp boundaries, is an illusion. In reality, things have no beginning or end. Nature is a seamless continuum and our own non-existence (in an ultimate sense) is a part of that.
While this is true it is also not true, because of the fact stated above. If I do not exist then nothing exists, yet I exist, and while I exist “I” am completely and utterly “intrinsic”. Intrinsic really only means that something is not nothing. It means it is distinguishable from something else, it has a pattern that retains form for a period - it does not mean that something is a permanent thing.
Brian: My view holds that omniscience is total knowledge of everything that exists, including the totality of everything that exists, which exists. This is not just the nature of things or the principles of things as DQ maintains but total knowledge of everything, including the mundane, the specific, the details: all of it.
Omniscience – no thing can be omniscient, because all things require a “centre”, a kind of centre of gravity, where the strongest, most consistent flows of interconnectedness of opposites occur - but if there is a centre then it becomes impossible to be omniscient because the relationship to other things is always bidirectional, a limited to and fro, LIMITED by time. Only the totality which is not limited by time can be considered to be omniscient, not that the word has any real meaning.
BrianT
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:29 am

Post by BrianT »

Can you advise me of any existence that you are not aware of in some fashion?

No, so therefore we all can say:

I am the totality of all that exists. My fleeting existence is my totality. The only possible form of god that can exist is whatever the current me is, and when what is currently me changes structurally so as to remove my awareness of me, then there will be nothing.
Non sequitor. Just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not for certain, at least. If a tree falls without witnesses, does it make a sound? You're saying no and I'm saying not no and not yes.

It would be interesting if I were the totality of all that exists, though.
From Magick by Aleister Crowley:
From Magick by Aliester Crowley:
I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain, that I might dream a dance of names and natures, and enjoy the substance of simplicity by watching the wanderings of my shadows. I am not that which is not; I know which knows not; I love that which loves not. For I am Love, whereby division dies in delight; I am Knowledge, whereby all parts, plunged in the whole, perish and pass into perfection; and I am that I am, the being wherein Being is lost in Nothing, nor deigns to be but its Will to unfold its nature, its need to express its perfection in all possibilities, each phase a partial phantasm, and yet inevitable and absolute.
I am Omniscient, for naught exists for me unless I know it. I am Omnipotent, for naught occurs save by Necessity my soul's expression through my will to be, to do, to suffer the symbols of itself. I am Omnipresent, for naught exists where I am not, who fashioned space as a condition of my consciousness myself, who am the center of all, and my circumference the frame of my fancy.
--Brian
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by DHodges »

Jamesh wrote: If I do not exist then nothing exists, yet I exist, and while I exist “I” am completely and utterly “intrinsic”.
No, the ego is only a construct of thought, an organizing principle, not something with intrinsic existence. Thought can go on without the ego. It is not necessary.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jamesh wrote:Intrinsic really only means that something is not nothing. It means it is distinguishable from something else, it has a pattern that retains form for a period - it does not mean that something is a permanent thing.
Intrinsic is the same as inherent: both implying the existence of an essential nature of a thing, see also dictionaries.

In reality it's the whole of the context that leaves room for the object to be perceived in some fashion. This context, ultimately the whole of Nature, is what exists, not the 'thing in itself' or any inherent quality the thing itself would possess.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

BrianT: Non sequitor. Just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not for certain, at least. If a tree falls without witnesses, does it make a sound? You're saying no and I'm saying not no and not yes.

It would be interesting if I were the totality of all that exists, though.
Like everything else there is always more than one (imaginary) perspective that a person can take (but there is only ever one actual perspective). All I am saying is that the only time anything can exist is when it exists for you personally. Sure there are an infinite numbers of things that exist physically that each of us is unaware of, or have not created through imagination, but if you say that these personally unclassified things exist then you are creating an imaginary existence, you are making an assumption that you cannot prove until you personally experience its existence ('prove' for example could include accepting that a Hubble picture logically signifies a certain form of existence).

This belief in existence beyond oneself, is the same process that leads people to create gods in their minds.

Nah, the above is probably semantic humbug. My point was really that you can only ever be self-conscious. When you accept that something exists it is already existent within your body, and what is you becomes aware of any "existence" only via thought, and when you are thinking, then that is the only time you are you. That is the only time you are existent. Your body is not really you. Your body is formed from and by the flow of the rest of the universe, totally and completely interconnected with the whole of the universe. Only in the way gravity allows for layered patterns of the flow of time does the existence of things become possible. Your thoughts, being your centre of the universe, are merely the lowest level layer of existence, relative to all other layers. Without this no perspective would be possible (and thus why no omniscient god is possible by the way). Of course the same applies to every point in the universe, and indicates that the concept of existence and non-existence is sort of spiritually irrelevant .

Lol, I actually wrote the above before I read the Crowley quote, although of course I may subconsciously have read and digested it while scanning.
Dhodges: No, the ego is only a construct of thought, an organizing principle, not something with intrinsic existence. Thought can go on without the ego. It is not necessary.


The ego is the set of logical and emotional processing rules in one's head on how to deal with experiences. Thought can never go on without the ego, as the ego channels experiences into thoughts, and thoughts are the "I".
Bert: Intrinsic is the same as inherent: both implying the existence of an essential nature of a thing
Well, why the thing exists it is still the "essential nature", the essential group of properties that allow for its appearance to us.
In reality it's the whole of the context that leaves room for the object to be perceived in some fashion. This context, ultimately the whole of Nature, is what exists, not the 'thing in itself' or any inherent quality the thing itself would possess.
Yes, I've said much the same thing in a lot more words.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jamesh wrote:
diebert wrote: Intrinsic is the same as inherent: both implying the existence of an essential nature of a thing
Well, why the thing exists it is still the "essential nature", the essential group of properties that allow for its appearance to us.
You might want to rephrase that first bit.

But wouldn't you think that it's the Totality that 'allows' the appearance to happen? Why introduce an 'essential group of properties' as in between. Those properties are part of the process of observing only and the context will always determine which ones we see as more essential than others. And since the countless properties are all linked by causality to the rest of the whole, what can be said to exist here?
Jamesh wrote:If I do not exist then nothing exists, yet I exist, and while I exist “I” am completely and utterly “intrinsic”.
The illusion of limited things is certainly related to the illusion of the "I". The existence of the whole and its ever changing appearances are not dependent on it.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by DHodges »

Jamesh wrote:The ego is the set of logical and emotional processing rules in one's head on how to deal with experiences. Thought can never go on without the ego, as the ego channels experiences into thoughts, and thoughts are the "I".
Husserl and Descartes would have agreed with you.

But, the "I" is a thought like any other. It is an object of thought, rather than "that which does the thinking." Thought can go on without the ego.

Here's a book on the topic:
The Transcendence of the Ego

For a take that is more scientific and less philosophical, there's:
The User Illusion
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Hey, Hey... We're the Monkees!

Post by DHodges »

unknown wrote:Why do you all waste time? MONKEES!.
Are you saying the Monkees were a wast of time, or that we should quit wasting time and go watch the Monkees?
Monkees....
If you are saying that we are the Monkees, then I call dibs on Michael Nesmith.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Sapius,
DQ: Okay, let's go back to basics. Where exactly do you begin?

S: Sure, to the basics then. Good question, but I hope you understand my answer.

Personally, I begin the moment I'm self-convincingly certain that “I” do not inherently exist. Do I need say more? On the other hand, philosophically speaking, I begin the moment I sense my first perceptions. Could be soon after my conception. I may not consciously remember any of it though. Physically speaking, I certainly begin at the moment of my conception.
DQ: So if we add them up, you've had at least three seperate beginnings ...? You weren't content with just the one?
I thought your entire philosophical standings revolved around A=A, not A+A. Don’t add, just take your pick.

Every single thought we have is subjective. What works for me may not work for you. For me, I consider my real beginning from the time I actually comprehend and accept who or what I really am. Once I realize that any and all of it is just in my head, including the “I”, I find myself actually Awake and Alive in a non-inherent existence. No one could actually get rid of the thought processes even if he is enlightened ten times over, hence a self-identity does remain. After that, Reality, Absolute Truth, or anything for that matter, does not bother one at all.

Saying, “I have no beginning or end”, is purely a delusional ego-pampering thought to justify immortality in some form or another. A subconscious wishful thinking.

S: My temporal existence being connected to infinity through cause and effect does not negate the fact that my form does exist. Any form for that matter. Or are you saying that forms are nothing whatsoever?
DQ: No, I'm saying that the forms we see around us have no beginning or end.

These forms may appear to our senses to have a beginning and an end, but this is an illusion. Appearances are often deceiving, we all know that. The sun appears to our senses to orbit the earth.

Today we know better, don’t we?

If appearances are deceiving, then how can we trust A=A? If not, then there surely must be something wrong with logic and reasoning. But I don’t think so, because it depends on the knowledge gained up until a certain point. Who knows, may be one day we will have a Theory Of All, and then there will be no need to ponder over Reality, philosophically.


What is infinite is the connectivity, not the connected, since the connected arise and fade away. It is the arising and fading that is infinite, not what arises and fades. Those are my basics as far as I know.
Okay, but what you have determined to be arising and fading away is purely a mental construction on your part.

In other words nothing is arising or fading, so what has no beginning or end? Does ‘mental construction’ mean no perception? How did you arrive at cause and effect then? How did you arrive at no beginning or end then? And how about “I have no beginning or end” itself? Which part of the non-mental process does this pearl of wisdom arise from? Is it not a mental construct? The underlying infinite nature of Reality seamlessly flowing is as true as the individual forms that are necessarily needed for cause and effect to exist. Without cause and effect being in effect, there would be even no concept of ‘no beginning or end’. Without forms, Reality is nothing. In fact, how limited is Reality if it does not even have the IQ of a retard.
DQ: The Universe is, in reality, a vast sea of causal processes, and every component of this sea - every movement, every interaction, every effect - is just as significant as any other. Whatever boundaries we choose to overlay upon this sea are always going to be imaginary in nature and a product of arbitrary whim. We might decide, for practical purposes, that a tree begins at such and such point and ends at such and such point, but neither of these boundaries represent anything special within the sea of causality. It's still just the same old process of cause and effect which is unfolding.
I know.
Sapius: Once you say we, you are referencing a thing, hence it has beginning and an end. And if in some sense we do not have any real existence, then it is obvious that the "we" does not exist, hence only nature does, and at this point it becomes illogical to say that "we" have no beginning or end.

David: It's not illogical to say this. Pointing to a tree, or to our own life, or to any finite phenomenon, and explaining that it has no beginning or end is an effective way to awaken people to the great truth that nothing really exists.

Sapius: So you are saying that it is logical to say it for effectiveness, not that the statement itself is logical.
David: I'm saying both. The statement is perfectly logical in its own right. Boundaries are always imaginary.

If boundaries are imaginary, then boundaries do not exist, so what thing without a boundary remains that would have no beginning or end?
David: Just the one.(God) All things share the same infinite nature.
So sharing infinite nature makes the thing itself have no beginning or end?

S: Underlying nature does not make a-thing anything like God. A thing is not Totality, and Totality is not a thing. The moment you realize and fully comprehend that you do not inherently exist, you see that only God/Tao/Emptiness exists. That’s it. To say that you have the nature of God immediately implies that you are talking about the form that exists, hence you have a beginning and an end, and hence the former part of the statement becomes false. Which is it then?
I love your passion! Obviously, you and I don't have the same form as the Totality, and so we cannot do what the Totality does. And yet we both are created out of the very same nature that makes up the Totality. Every aspect of our existence is identical in its formlessness and emptiness, and every aspect of our existence is identical in its formlessness and emptiness to every other aspect of the Totality. In everything that we do, we express the nature of the Totality in its entirety. The whole of creation and the whole of eternity is there in the blinking of our eyes, the picking of our teeth, the yawning and stretching of our limbs, etc.

So yes, our form is not that of the Totality, but nonetheless the essence of the Totality is fully present in every little detail of our being.

Well, sometimes this ‘nonetheless’ takes us a little bit too far I guess.

If “you” have no beginning or end, so be it, enjoy it.

I guess its next topic then.......
unknown
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:59 am

Post by unknown »

sapius BABBLE vs David Queen BABBLE. Which is better ? On what basis?.

Baboons.

Ask questions, Never agree or disagree.

When "I" disappears there is no need to argue beliefs. It does n't exists.

THINK!.

peace
unknown
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

unknown wrote:

THINK!.
Why?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:
DQ: Okay, let's go back to basics. Where exactly do you begin?

S: Sure, to the basics then. Good question, but I hope you understand my answer.

Personally, I begin the moment I'm self-convincingly certain that “I” do not inherently exist. Do I need say more? On the other hand, philosophically speaking, I begin the moment I sense my first perceptions. Could be soon after my conception. I may not consciously remember any of it though. Physically speaking, I certainly begin at the moment of my conception.

DQ: So if we add them up, you've had at least three seperate beginnings ...? You weren't content with just the one?

S: I thought your entire philosophical standings revolved around A=A, not A+A. Don’t add, just take your pick.
Thanks for giving me such a wide choice! Hmm, I'll choose that one.

Every single thought we have is subjective. What works for me may not work for you. For me, I consider my real beginning from the time I actually comprehend and accept who or what I really am. Once I realize that any and all of it is just in my head, including the “I”, I find myself actually Awake and Alive in a non-inherent existence.

I think it was Maharishi who made a point of celebrating, not his birthday, but his "enlightenment day" each year. He thought this was far more significant occasion to rejoice in.

No one could actually get rid of the thought processes even if he is enlightened ten times over, hence a self-identity does remain. After that, Reality, Absolute Truth, or anything for that matter, does not bother one at all.
What if someone smashed your brains out with a hammer? Would the enlightened thought-processes still remain?

Saying, “I have no beginning or end”, is purely a delusional ego-pampering thought to justify immortality in some form or another. A subconscious wishful thinking.
It can be. It depends on whether it is said from a wise perspective or not.

DQ: No, I'm saying that the forms we see around us have no beginning or end.

These forms may appear to our senses to have a beginning and an end, but this is an illusion. Appearances are often deceiving, we all know that. The sun appears to our senses to orbit the earth.

S: Today we know better, don’t we?

If appearances are deceiving, then how can we trust A=A?

Even appearances conform to A=A, so that's not an issue.

If not, then there surely must be something wrong with logic and reasoning. But I don’t think so, because it depends on the knowledge gained up until a certain point. Who knows, may be one day we will have a Theory Of All, and then there will be no need to ponder over Reality, philosophically.
Yes, that is enlightenment, which has been enjoyed by various people over the past few thousand years.

S: What is infinite is the connectivity, not the connected, since the connected arise and fade away. It is the arising and fading that is infinite, not what arises and fades. Those are my basics as far as I know.

Okay, but what you have determined to be arising and fading away is purely a mental construction on your part.

S: In other words nothing is arising or fading, so what has no beginning or end?

Exactly. If there is no beginning and end to things, then it means there are no things.

Does ‘mental construction’ mean no perception? How did you arrive at cause and effect then? How did you arrive at no beginning or end then? And how about “I have no beginning or end” itself? Which part of the non-mental process does this pearl of wisdom arise from? Is it not a mental construct?

Yes, it is a mental construct. The enlightened person uses mental constructions as much as the next person - such as "cause and effect" and "beginninglessness and endlessness" - and, like everyone else, he lives in a world of forms which appear to have boundaries. The difference with him is that he is no longer fooled by his own mental constructs, and he no longer believes that the forms he experiences in the world are real.

-
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

David,
Thanks for giving me such a wide choice! Hmm, I'll choose that one.
No, one cannot choose, one is caused to, hence one is caused to choose. Wouldn't it be so? Am I actually choosing anything at all? No. Hence I am not responsible for my choices that seem to be so.
I think it was Maharishi who made a point of celebrating, not his birthday, but his "enlightenment day" each year. He thought this was far more significant occasion to rejoice in.
I don't find it as a yearly rejoicing occasion, but nevertheless, it could be a significant moment for me, and I am caused to think it so. Hence "I" cannot help it.

S: No one could actually get rid of the thought processes even if he is enlightened ten times over, hence a self-identity does remain. -------After that, (After What?) Reality, Absolute Truth, or anything for that matter, does not bother one at all.

DQ: What if someone smashed your brains out with a hammer? Would the enlightened thought-processes still remain?
Is this a question raised after you've read it in context?

First off, the two sentences you have segregated from a flowing context do not make sense as they are. So I take it you are confused.

There is no time when an enlightened person can get rid of a thought process confirming that there still remains a self-identity as long as no one else smashes his brains out with a hammer. Please read the whole sentence and tell me it is not so. It is a different story if he were hit by a shovel, that too from the wrong end.
S: Saying, “I have no beginning or end”, is purely a delusional ego-pampering thought to justify immortality in some form or another. A subconscious wishful thinking.

DQ: It can be. It depends on whether it is said from a wise perspective or not.

So is wisdom a property of Reality? Totality? or a mental construct?
DQ: No, I'm saying that the forms we see around us have no beginning or end.

These forms may appear to our senses to have a beginning and an end, but this is an illusion. Appearances are often deceiving, we all know that. The sun appears to our senses to orbit the earth.

S: Today we know better, don’t we?

If appearances are deceiving, then how can we trust A=A?

DQ: Even appearances conform to A=A, so that's not an issue.
Sure, that is why I continued by saying 'If not" (See the bold in next quote) , but that is not the point I'm trying to make.

If the flow of one appearance to another is an illusion, not the A=A itself that you are trusting to be true, then cause and effect is an illusion, and if that is an illusion, we better not talk about Reality for we have no other perspective other than the illusion to work with, hence A=A, on which illusions are based, hold no meaning at all.
S:S If not, then there surely must be something wrong with logic and reasoning. But I don’t think so, because it depends on the knowledge gained up until a certain point. Who knows, may be one day we will have a Theory Of All, and then there will be no need to ponder over Reality, philosophically.

Yes, that is enlightenment, which has been enjoyed by various people over the past few thousand years.
For the sake of clarity could you please summarize the same in your own words?
S: What is infinite is the connectivity, not the connected, since the connected arise and fade away. It is the arising and fading that is infinite, not what arises and fades. Those are my basics as far as I know.

DQ: Okay, but what you have determined to be arising and fading away is purely a mental construction on your part.

S: In other words nothing is arising or fading, so what has no beginning or end?

DQ: Exactly. If there is no beginning and end to things, then it means there are no things.
Huh! You are going in circles, David. IF, nothing is arising or fading, please keep in mind nothing, then there is no-thing, end of story there and then. BUT, if you say that THINGS have no beginning or ending, I will ask you, what things? Not whether they have a beginning or ending, that becomes irrelevant if they do not exist in the first place.

If you mean it just philosophically, then philosophy is an illusion.
S: Does ‘mental construction’ mean no perception? How did you arrive at cause and effect then? How did you arrive at no beginning or end then? And how about “I have no beginning or end” itself? Which part of the non-mental process does this pearl of wisdom arise from? Is it not a mental construct?

DQ: Yes, it is a mental construct. The enlightened person uses mental constructions as much as the next person - such as "cause and effect" and "beginninglessness and endlessness" - and, like everyone else, he lives in a world of forms which appear to have boundaries. The difference with him is that he is no longer fooled by his own mental constructs, and he no longer believes that the forms he experiences in the world are real.
I understand, but the point is, isn't it a fact that the enlightened are no longer being fooled by these mental constructions, a mental construction itself? So how come he is not being fooled by this particular mental construction?

If at any time you think my line of questioning is stupid, please do say so.
Locked