IT IS...

[David Quinn]

seven wrote:

"A=A is a powerful weapon. But, it is only a component of Ultimate Truth. The truths that the Quantum World holds, only reflect those you arrive at after A=A is solidified, and exhaled. What you find in the vapor trail, is a universe that revolves around linear and non-linear time (essentially, 'no time'). Causality, in all its glory, is as vast and complex, as the Quantum World -- scanning events in the NOW, through linear and non-linear thought - for Energy. When your world becomes a universe of the Self (arrived at through these dynamic thought patterns), then, Creation is possible. You transcend the duality of A=A, and enter into 1=1 -- enabling the alignment and linking of events, into and through, Infinity."

That's certainly cleared everything up. Thanks.

True. Desire is at the root of every human. But you speak of it as if it were to be shunned - for some higher truth.

Doesn't desire express a hatred for God? Desire says, "I am not satisfied with how things are. God is lacking."

I tell you, you're inability to separate yourself from what you perceive as lesser, traps you in a world of David = Not David.

You also try to seperate yourself from what you perceive as lesser, so I have no idea what you are trying to imply here. Are you saying that you are trapped too?

You've got the principles down - but your disdain for art, or perhaps 'femininity', completely cuts you off from regions of the mind that upload A=A into Reality.

And your disdain for the mentality which disdains art and femininity must also cut you off in the same way. As does your disdain for child-molesting and murder and so on. So again, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

It's funny, but behind all the New Age waffle, you never really say anything at all.

-

[sevens]

David,

At higher stages of self-realization, cause and effect transforms into a dynamic system - for transcendence. You realize that any hatred towards any external force is, of course, pointless. So, I ask you, how do you leap from phenomenon to phenomenon? Higher perceptual states only illuminates your own Divinity (and what a dirty word that is). Your desire to create, turns cause and effect - into Creation: no longer subject to Nature, but instead - your own. In essence, you are no longer riding with causality, but constructing it - within it.

(In fact, you already are)

Baabel Fish:

Yes, God (Uni-verse, Microcosm, Nature, The Force, The Source) is within

you. Discovering this, you refract and reflect -- Infinite Light.

[sevens]

(Bigger waffles! Bigger waffles!)

[sevens]

New Age? If you mean, discovering Truth through experience alone - then, right on. Haven't you read the tales of Zen Masters? The Tao? Shamanism? Silly sage. Don't let the language fool you! You have knowledge and you're in the forest - but, why do you not follow the path, out into the galaxy?

[David Quinn]

I'm sorry, but what you call the "galaxy" is a bloated realm of egotistical fantasy and naive imaginings that I find very uninteresting.

To my mind, you're very much like a bower bird who picks up all sorts of bright-coloured objects simply because they are bright. There is no real discrimination on your part to assess whether these objects are actually connected to reality and have long-lasting value. All you're really interested in is the short-term "hit" that these bright-coloured objects can give you.

It's a very childish attitude, but it's not a wise form of childishness, as we see in the Zen stories. Rather, it's a bland form of self-indulgence.

-

(edited for spelling mistakes - DQ)

[sevens]

I'm sorry, but what you call the "galaxy" is a bloated realm of egotistical fantasy and naive imaginings that I find very uninteresting.

To my mind, you're very much like a bower bird who picks up all sorts of bright-coloured objects simply because they are bright. There is no real discrimination on your part to asses whether these objects are actually connected to reality and have long-lasting value. All you're really interested in is the short-term "hit" that these bright-coloured objects can give you.

It's a very childish attitude, but it's not a wise form of childishness, as we see in the Zen stories. Rather, it's a bland form of self-indulgence.

-

Very well. With your discerning eye, I would have expected acknowledgment of this 'childish wisdom'. But, again, all you see is swirling lights and colours, that you have yet to experience. I know very well your reality -- "Ultimate Reality." Nah. You have yet to incorporate it - to integrate it - to breath it. The Universe is wild, man.

But, hey, everything is caused, right?

[Blair]

You seem awfully put out by the fact that Quinn's reality is different than yours.

What is it you are trying to prove? You don't seem to be saying anything at all, just a bunch of hot air.

[sevens]

Prince,

Declarations like "Ultimate" and "Enlightenment" -- beg for challenge, if not refinement.

Why construct a forum?

[David Quinn]

sevens wrote:

With your discerning eye, I would have expected acknowledgment of this 'childish wisdom'.

I acknowledge the existence of "childish wisdom" - it exists in spades in Jesus and Diogenes, for example - but I don't see it in you. Instead, what I see is a child naively, and mistakenly, thinking he is wise.

So far, you've made a couple of faltering steps in the right direction, but until you begin to confront falseness more openly and fully, you're not going to get anywhere. You can't hide away in childhood for the rest of your life.

I know very well your reality -- "Ultimate Reality."

This is easy enough to say, but I've not seen any evidence of this.

The Universe is wild, man.

It may be wild, but it isn't incoherent and fluffy.


-

[sevens]

David --

Evidence of naivete?

Are my 'incoherent and fluffy' posts not of your taste? Should I shift my wielding to your temperment? Are you an artist, still? You cling to your deep truth, as a child, David (please excuse the feminine mimicery). What have you discovered in the Infinite? Aside from:

A=A
Cause and Effect governs the Universe
All is Illusion
Emptiness, is Ego Detachment
Things lack Inherent Existence
Now is all that 'exists'

-

All I'm hearing, David.

[Blair]

Declarations like "Ultimate" and "Enlightenment" -- beg for challenge, if not refinement.
Why construct a forum?

You can challenge them in your mind, you need not spew out in words every single piece of crap your muddled mind happens to come up with.

The essence of this forum is beyond what you are 'preaching', or trying to say. It's up to you to make the right turns and conclusions to move forward. Kicking and screaming against it, as you do, is just holding you in place.

[sevens]

Kicking and screaming?

You mean, "like a child"?

(What?)

Prince,

Believe we've met.

-

You're right though. It was foolish to go for the big guy.

[David Quinn]

sevens wrote,

A=A
Cause and Effect governs the Universe
All is Illusion
Emptiness, is Ego Detachment
Things lack Inherent Existence
Now is all that 'exists'

-

All I'm hearing, David.

And you're not even really hearing these.

As I say, words are cheap. You indicate with your behaviour that you have only a skeletal understanding of these truths at best, and you certainly don't display any awareness of the greater reality these truths all point to.

Astral travelling, Jung, shamanism, vibrating the Light, sharing whimsical insights with girls - what's next? Tap dancing?

-

[Jason]

Jason,

With dominoes-like causation I am referring to uncertainties in the type of "causation" which links the flicking of a switch to a lightbulb emitting light. The way I read it this type of causation is what Sue is using with her cup and its creation from clay. This is as opposed to the certainty of a cup existing because of non-cup. This is why I prefer using the word "identity". I think it is more effective in dealing with the as-is reality rather than the imagined past/external reality and it deals with the as-is of A and NotA rather than the might-have-been of A,B,C,D of big-bang, matter, clay, cup.

Then how do you deal with the reality of physical change?

I see no need to "deal with" physical change. It simply is. It appears to me and that is it. Present-physical-state has existence/indentity by contrast with non-present-physical-state. Dealing with physical change as: Big Bang to matter to clay to cup; is scientific not philosophical.

DQ: Understanding this doesn't require one to assume the existence of an external world, or the existence of the past, nor does it require one to remain stuck in a scientific mentality. So why are you linking them together?

J: Sues examples clearly speak of the past and even the Big Bang, which shows the assumption of an external world, past events etc.

The past, together with the Big Bang, does exist as an appearance. This appearance is very real - we can't pretend otherwise. This doesn't mean we have to assert that the past exists as an independent, objective reality. But we do need to acknowledge its existence as an appearance.

We agree on this. The problem I see is that using very scientific/materialist ideas like the Big Bang (without explanation that it is not being used in the normal independent-of-consciousness way) is bound to lead to a scientific/materialistic interpretation. I think it is a poor choice to use very scientific/materialist terms when trying to explain and analyze ideas which are fundementally at odds with the common scientific/materialist mindset.

DQ: Exploring the reality of dominoes-like causality is just one part of the overall process of breaking down the illusion of inherent existence. Other parts include exploring the truth that everything we experience is a creation of our consciousness; that everything is relative; that things only exist in the moment and nowhere else; and so on. You need to integrate all these realities together, including the reality of dominoes-like causality, in order to attain the highest understanding.

J: I favour the use of that which is certain to find certainty. The here and now of my senses, thoughts, feelings etc is it, not the Big Bang or other imagined past states of things like cups. It seems Sue and Matt are now arguing that it is the results that matter and not the process. I disagree. As far as I am concerned if part of the process is corrupted by uncertainty then the result is also prone to corruption. If certainty is the goal the only use for uncertainty is as pointer to that which should be disregarded.

That the appearance of the past presents itself to our minds is a certainty. And it is just as real as any other appearance that occurs in the present.

-

We agree on this fundemental last point and this is really the entire basis of my argument. To me dominoes-causation is far too closely tied to independent-from-consciousness views. You may as well incorporate the tenents of Islam or New Age into your base arguments if all that is relevant is that they are an appearance to consciousness.

It seems to me that you are being intentionally deceptive or provocative in even arguing these things with me. Maybe you are being protective of Sue, maybe you are being protective of your favoured(and I think flawed for the task) dominoes-causation ideas.

[sevens]

You say that? - Words are cheap?

Oh.

Sounds kinda like Unknown.

-

What would you like me to write?

A lengthy thesis on truths that have become, commonplace - here.

As you say, 'I find that very uninteresting'.

-

David, how do you define this (your) Infinite, by the way?

Is 'God' not found in everything? - Even other people?

What 'God' are you worshipping?

Is your Universe - One?

-

Has your Buddha Nature, united, with Nature?

Does Zen equal Zen?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sevens,

I know very well your reality -- "Ultimate Reality." Nah. You have yet to incorporate it - to integrate it - to breath it. The Universe is wild, man.

The question is in the end about depth and what we think it means 'to be as deep as we are clear'. Now before a mudslinging contest starts about who is shallow and who is not, lets try to understand the nature of shallowness first, before trying to grasp the depths with our tiny little fists.

To me, shallowness means living on the surface of life with its sensations, inner stirrings, colors, lights, shapes, words and forms. Not to mention a host of emotion and feelings that guides a blind soul in the maze of life. One must understand that for a shallow person all these things seem to contain amazing depth and definition until he finds out it was just all a twinkle in his own ego's eye. Here the famous 'abyss' starts devouring our personal world.

What does it mean for you?

[sevens]

To me, 'the abyss' is only - and can be only - your own mind. What separates the shallow, from the deep, is the extent to which an individual dives: their courage - their passion, for Truth. You traverse the chasm, until you reach the center of your ego: your boundless microcosm. All external phenomenon are set in place to guide you (through causality) towards the center of this ego, your mind - your Universe.

Once this occurs, new knowledge unfolds.

[David Quinn]

Jason,

It seems to me that you are being intentionally deceptive or provocative in even arguing these things with me. Maybe you are being protective of Sue, maybe you are being protective of your favoured(and I think flawed for the task) dominoes-causation ideas.

Well, at bottom, I'm saying that I've never had a problem with the concept of dominoes-like causality. It's never trapped me in the scientific mentality or held me in the belief that existence is independent of consciousness. On the contrary, I've always found it to be a magnificent concept, pregnant with many implications, and far too lively to ever be imprisoning. I can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with it unless they are strongly attached to a particular mind-orientated outlook on life.

Jason, if you're having a problem with the concept of dominoes-like causality, then there is something seriously amiss.

I see no need to "deal with" physical change. It simply is. It appears to me and that is it.

Physical change encompasses everything that you are, and you don't see a need to deal with it?

Present-physical-state has existence/indentity by contrast with non-present-physical-state. Dealing with physical change as: Big Bang to matter to clay to cup; is scientific not philosophical.

I think you are hiding away in an abstract world there. Yes, I agree it is important to acknowledge the logical truth that all things find their existence in their opposites, but this is only one aspect of the matter. It isn't the whole truth. You seem to be treating it as the whole truth in order to avoid certain other realities of life.

-

[zarathustra]

the metaphysical arguments/opinions/logic which seem to dominate this forum are at times eloquently stated, beautiful constructs, and at times are a real testimony to the beauty of human intelligence...the tragedy being that they are all false...which doensn't mean to say they are not valid, or of any use...

[David Quinn]

I'm sure if you keep chanting this mantra, it will come true. You just have to BELIEVE.

-

[Jason]

Jason,

It seems to me that you are being intentionally deceptive or provocative in even arguing these things with me. Maybe you are being protective of Sue, maybe you are being protective of your favoured(and I think flawed for the task) dominoes-causation ideas.

Well, at bottom, I'm saying that I've never had a problem with the concept of dominoes-like causality. It's never trapped me in the scientific mentality or held me in the belief that existence is independent of consciousness. On the contrary, I've always found it to be a magnificent concept, pregnant with many implications, and far too lively to ever be imprisoning. I can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with it unless they are strongly attached to a particular mind-orientated outlook on life.

My honest response would have to be that you aren't imagining hard enough then.

Jason, if you're having a problem with the concept of dominoes-like causality, then there is something seriously amiss.-

I find that disingenuous of you, or perhaps not open minded enough on this point. I'm quite capable of seeing dominoes-causation as being an appearance which is dependent upon consciousness*(see last bit of post for more on this).

You cropped most of my post, so I will repeat my primary point again, and it is very simple:

The Big Bang and dominoes-causality is associated very strongly and almost universally with science and thus with the existence-is-independent-from-consciousness worldview that goes along with that. Using ideas which are so closely associated with existence-is-independent-from-consciousness in a philosophy that is fundementally at odds with this worldview is likely to be seen as contradictory by almost all who come across it.

It's all fine and dandy that you personally can say "well the Big Bang is dependent on consciousness as are all appearances." but without this little bit of extra 'fine print' you are going to be misinterpreted by just about everyone and I'm not just talking about philosophically mediocre science types.

I see no need to "deal with" physical change. It simply is. It appears to me and that is it.

Physical change encompasses everything that you are, and you don't see a need to deal with it?

No need to get too hung up on a turn of phrase. That you insert a response at that point of my paragraph seems only to be for dramatic effect.

Present-physical-state has existence/indentity by contrast with non-present-physical-state. Dealing with physical change as: Big Bang to matter to clay to cup; is scientific not philosophical.

I think you are hiding away in an abstract world there. Yes, I agree it is important to acknowledge the logical truth that all things find their existence in their opposites, but this is only one aspect of the matter. It isn't the whole truth. You seem to be treating it as the whole truth in order to avoid certain other realities of life.
-

Perhaps you could enlighten me on what you think the other aspects of matter are then. As far as I am concerned matter is an appearance, and appearances exist due to boundaries ie matter exists as an appearance because of non-matter.


This is getting tiresome as I don't even think we are disareeing on anything more than the window dressing(which does have some importance though) of philosophy, and I think we've gone over it all before. The problem is: do you want the window dressing to appear only meaningful to those in the know, or rather change it so that it still appeals to those in the know while also being able to be understood by a broader audience?

*(Maybe you are going to argue that even saying everything is an "appearance" is limiting things to a certain non-absolute worldview. Then we get back to the never ending argument of using our preferred finite ideas for explaining the non-finite, and then arguing that each others ways is actually finite not infinite....and on and on)

[zarathustra]

IT IS...a mystery...

[Leyla Shen]

Well, at bottom, I'm saying that I've never had a problem with the concept of dominoes-like causality. It's never trapped me in the scientific mentality or held me in the belief that existence is independent of consciousness. On the contrary, I've always found it to be a magnificent concept, pregnant with many implications, and far too lively to ever be imprisoning. I can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with it unless they are strongly attached to a particular mind-orientated outlook on life.

Interesting. There is a quote on Kelly's page:

"Mind is everything. That is what I am."

What do you think of it, David, and how do you think it influences her philosophy and her actions?

[David Quinn]

Perhaps she means it in the sense that Huang Po means it - that is, equating "Mind" with God or Buddha-nature. In this sense, "Mind" refers to the principle of all creation, which is responsible for the creation of our own limited minds.

-

[David Quinn]

Jason wrote:

The Big Bang and dominoes-causality is associated very strongly and almost universally with science and thus with the existence-is-independent-from-consciousness worldview that goes along with that.

I don't think it does. Most people who follow science nowadays have very little consciousness of cause and effect as a principle - or if they do, it is only to repudiate it using quantum theorizing as evidence. Cause and effect tends to be regarded as an antiquated theory which no one really believes in any more.

Moreover, you don't need to believe in independent existence in order to do science, nor do you have to believe in it in order to affirm the principle of cause and effect. So I really don't know what your problem is. It seems to be a problem that is confined to you alone.

Using ideas which are so closely associated with existence-is-independent-from-consciousness in a philosophy that is fundementally at odds with this worldview is likely to be seen as contradictory by almost all who come across it.

There are always going to be foolish people who will misuse wise teachings, no matter how well you present them.

For example, if you teach the truth that all things are illusory, then there will always be fools who will misinterpret this to mean that you are preaching nihilism. Or if you teach about the inferiority of femininity, then there will always be fools who will treat this as permission to be cruel towards women. What can you do? You can't hold back important teachings simply because of what foolish people might do with them.

It's all fine and dandy that you personally can say "well the Big Bang is dependent on consciousness as are all appearances." but without this little bit of extra 'fine print' you are going to be misinterpreted by just about everyone and I'm not just talking about philosophically mediocre science types.

Don't worry, I try to make it as difficult as possible for people to stay within science.

Maybe you are going to argue that even saying everything is an "appearance" is limiting things to a certain non-absolute worldview. Then we get back to the never ending argument of using our preferred finite ideas for explaining the non-finite, and then arguing that each others ways is actually finite not infinite....and on and on.

It's important to break the spell exerted by all appearances, and not just a limited selection of them. The perception that "everything is an appearance" is itself an appearance and needs to be abandoned as well. This is what entering into Emptiness means - you have to abandon attachment to utterly everything that presents an appearance.

Once you do this successfuly, you can then reclaim the world. You can affirm that mountains really are mountains and trees really are trees. You can even go back to science and reaffirm the reality of independent existence, safe in the knowledge that it is all fundamentally an illusion.


-