The UR Pursuit. [mattfaust is most wise]

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
the meme of barnaby
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:16 pm

The UR Pursuit. [mattfaust is most wise]

Post by the meme of barnaby »


Is there any point in pursuing "Ultimate Reality?" I am interested in your definitions of Ultimate Realty- what it means to be enlightentd, and also your thoughts on why we should bother embarking on such an apparently difficult journey. Absence of grammatical/linguistic nitpickings are appreciated.

cheers,

Barnaby.


[On an unrelated topic, I would like to thank mattfaust for his efforts in generating interesting threads and questioning what appears to be mainstream thought in this forum. Perceptual diversity should be encouraged.] :)
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Memish Barnaby, appreciator of absences, there is no ultimate reality, and therefore no point in pursuing it.

Sincerely,

suergaz.
mattfaust
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 7:15 am

Re: ---

Post by mattfaust »

There is only one way to find out if there is Ultimate Reality and that is to pursue it full force. Please ignore all posts by suergaz as you'll quickly find out that he is a buffoon and posts only rubbish. Start with Daniel Quinn's book and then go to the classic authors on Enlightenment like Huang Po, Lao Tzu, and the like. Another word of advice, be very careful about what kind of information you get on this forum. In my opinion, most of the people here don't belong in a forum for "geniuses." They will only send you down the wrong path.
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: ---

Post by voce io »

There is only one way to find out if there is Ultimate Reality and that is to pursue it full force.

How could anyone deny that Reality IS? You find Ultimate Reality by thinking honestly.

Please ignore all posts by suergaz as you'll quickly find out that he is a buffoon and posts only rubbish. Start with Daniel Quinn's book and then go to the classic authors on Enlightenment like Huang Po, Lao Tzu, and the like.

As I agree to read DQ's book, and the classical enlightenment authors...I don't agree that suergaz is a buffoon!

Another word of advice, be very careful about what kind of information you get on this forum. In my opinion, most of the people here don't belong in a forum for "geniuses." They will only send you down the wrong path.

You feel that YOU belong to a forum for 'geniuses'? You feel that YOU know the RIGHT path? You are still searching. That places you outside of the categories of 'genius' and 'knowing the right path'.
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: The UR Pursuit. [mattfaust is most wise]

Post by voce io »

As I realize this topic is dedicated to the finite and human wisdom of mattfaust, I will reply to it anyway...with the feeling that m.f. doesn't have the capability or resources to answer well enough to the following questions:

Is there any point in pursuing "Ultimate Reality?"

You are part of Ultimate Reality, and therefore, you can't pursue it. To pursue it would mean that you'd be finding something outside of yourself; as if it were, let's say, a hotdog. The hungry student is always searching for a conceptual hotdog. What the student doesn't know, is that he is part of a gigantic hotdog...and the knowledge that he and everything and everyone he knows is a hotdog will fill...not his stomach...but his mind. There is nothing but the great hotdog.

There are many points of pursuing the knowledge that you are one with the universe. One could be to look wise to others. One could be to feel free from human imprisonment. One could be to become a greater human being. I should say mostly, be honest with whatever drives you towards enlightenment. Even if it's, somehow, for some reason, to get laid more...even if you feel it will make you look like a great person. Let it stroke your ego. Don't deny yourself. Be honest.

I am interested in your definitions of Ultimate Realty-

Ultimate Reality is whatever is in Existence for all of Eternity. It's what exists outside of the five senses. It's what enables the self to run amuck in the reflected universe contained within the mind, and created through the five senses. Ultimate Reality is the only true Truth.

what it means to be enlightentd,

There are different types of enlightenment. I have enlightenment of the mind, which is where you understand Truth logically. There is also enlightenment of the body, where your mind is constantly working in Truth. I think Dan (a creator of the forum) says that what I'm calling 'enlightenment of the body' is 'perfective enlightenment'. Who knows for sure? I could hardly even say if such an enlightenment exists. It's best to not even try to achieve such a thing. Only try to understand Truth. Enlightenment is even illusion, compared to Truth/U.R.

and also your thoughts on why we should bother embarking on such an apparently difficult journey.

That's highly personal. It's up to you to decide whether or not and why or why not you want to embark.

[On an unrelated topic, I would like to thank mattfaust for his efforts in generating interesting threads and questioning what appears to be mainstream thought in this forum. Perceptual diversity should be encouraged.] :)

Idiots should be mocked, and hardened. Once they are hardened, they'll grow. When they grow, they'll be accepted, and softened. That will allow them to grow even more.

I wouldn't be thanking mattfaust, but I'd be thanking the ones that challenge him. It's nice when people challenge the forum itself, but they should have the necessary intelligence to do it.

This place isn't about manners, it's about Truth. "The Thinking Man's Minefield". It may hurt.
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

voce io is right, reality is infinite and finite, not ultimate, meaning that 'ultimate' reality is only ever reality.

Ultimate reality is a superfluous expression betraying weakness of expression.

mattfaust
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 7:15 am

Re: ---

Post by mattfaust »

I think the most important thing above all in matters of Enlightenment is to find out for yourself instead of taking other people's ideas and defintions. Use them as a guide instead accepting them as such. I mean this talk about being enlightened of the mind and of the body is clearly nonsense. I think people in this forum make this crap up as they go along. I mean these fools tried to attack me personally in other threads as if they knew me in person. This is surely the height of stupidity.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ---

Post by jimhaz »

Will you stop whining about fools attacking you - you pathetic egotist. Anybody who carries on so much about being questioned clearly hasn't got a clue.

Mat'Faust' - prolly a German background. If so thats bad, but at least it aint French :)
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Who attacked you?!

People here like the skating no matter the tumbling.
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: ---

Post by voce io »

I think the most important thing above all in matters of Enlightenment is to find out for yourself instead of taking other people's ideas and defintions.

Yes, using subjective reality as a foundation is a great way to find Ultimate Reality. LOL.

Use them as a guide instead accepting them as such.

I do agree with this idea. It's probably best not to take anyone too seriously.

I mean this talk about being enlightened of the mind and of the body is clearly nonsense. I think people in this forum make this crap up as they go along.

It'd do you well to listen instead of judge. You want enlightenment, don't you? Well what IS enlightenment? (I'm asking you to answer, honestly..it isn't rhetorical)
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

Quoting voce io

Post by Paul »

"1) Enlightenment IS there. It's a state of mind. (2) It can be described. It's merely hard for an unenlightened person to comprehend, because this type of looking and knowing is so much different than living in the sensual experience."


mattfaust
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 7:15 am

Re: Quoting voce io

Post by mattfaust »

Yes, using subjective reality as a foundation is a great way to find Ultimate Reality. LOL

This is what I'm talking about. How else would you find it? Any thought, experience, or anything that you are aware of necessarily falls into the subjective realm. Please explain how this could be otherwise.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quoting voce io

Post by jimhaz »

sugar

I've only recently realised your humourous you are..
how fucked am I.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Quoting voce io

Post by Dave Toast »

If you should go skating
On the thin ice of modern life
Dragging behind you the silent reproach
Of a million tear-stained eyes
Don't be surprised when a crack in the ice
Appears under your feet.
You slip out of your depth and out of your mind
With your fear flowing out behind you
As you claw the thin ice.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Voce: Yes, using subjective reality as a foundation is a great way to find Ultimate Reality. LOL

Mattfaust: This is what I'm talking about. How else would you find it? Any thought, experience, or anything that you are aware of necessarily falls into the subjective realm. Please explain how this could be otherwise.<hr>
It cannot be otherwise, obviously. That's what makes Voce correct here. It's also what makes the likes of Zag correct when they say that there is no Ultimate reality, i.e. Ultimate reality doesn't exist. If existence is appearance to mind, and mind is contained within the totality, then mind has no consistent or complete method of ascertaining it's 'truth' (the word truth is used here only as a rhetorical device as truth is only an existential concept).

If the seeming paradox of trancedence of the existential malaise is possible, then such a mind may well gain access to such things as Ultimate Reality. As I say though, said route is a paradox.

To my mind, this guarantees that enlightenment is certainly not contingent upon an understanding of this mythical Ultimate Reality.

I have yet to see a convincing way out of this conundrum.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Quoting voce io

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Ultimate reality doesn't exist. If existence is appearance to mind, and mind is contained within the totality, then mind has no consistent or complete method of ascertaining it's 'truth' (the word truth is used here only as a rhetorical device as truth is only an existential concept).

If the seeming paradox of trancedence of the existential malaise is possible, then such a mind may well gain access to such things as Ultimate Reality. As I say though, said route is a paradox.<hr>

Hmmm...perhaps I need to be sent back to the remedial class. I take ultimate reality to mean that which is not readily apparent. It is just a term, but a useful one. Suergaz seems to be saying there is no demarcation between ultimate and regular reality. But it is a matter of understanding and outlook. It is somewhat like the difference between a person who thinks the sun moves across the sky and one who knows the earth rotates. That it rotates is not ultimate-ultimate reality, but it's a lot closer. That's a very mundane metaphor, but it's the same kind of thing with philosophical and spiritual understandings of how the universe works.

But why have we accepted that existence is appearance to mind, and that mind is subordinate to the Totality? If there is something about the Totality that is transcendent or inherent, why should we not have any route of access?
suergaz

----

Post by suergaz »

You were in a remedial class?!
WolfsonJakk
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

----

Post by WolfsonJakk »

It is what is meant when it is said that we are all enlightened, only we simply need to break through the delusions and remember it.

There is no demarcation between Ultimate Reality and Regular Reality. The idea of one's trival existance in this reality (ultimate, regular, or other) is something that can lead to separation from that which causes suffering (desireing), and on to a newfound understanding and peace. To see the cycle for what it is, is to be reborn in some sense. It is an emotional achievement, founded in reason, but not limited to logic.

Tharan
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ----

Post by Dave Toast »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Bird: I take ultimate reality to mean that which is not readily apparent. It is just a term, but a useful one.<hr>
It may well be useful referentially, but semantically, it's an oxymoron.

I take Ultimate Reality to mean the non-artificial, exhaustive, final and absolute nature of the Totality.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Suergaz seems to be saying there is no demarcation between ultimate and regular reality.<hr>
How could there be?

Ultimate reality is regular reality.


Quote:Quote:<hr>But it is a matter of understanding and outlook. It is somewhat like the difference between a person who thinks the sun moves across the sky and one who knows the earth rotates. That it rotates is not ultimate-ultimate reality, but it's a lot closer. <hr>
Yes, one can always refine one's understanding of the nature of reality.

The final ultimate step, however, can never be made.


Quote:Quote:<hr>But why have we accepted that existence is appearance to mind<hr>
Simply because appearance to mind defines what existence is.


Quote:Quote:<hr>and that mind is subordinate to the Totality?<hr>
Not quite sure what you mean by subordinate in this sense.

Mind is a part of the totality, but not totality itself.

In one sense the totality is subordinate to mind as it is an appearance to mind itself.


Quote:Quote:<hr>If there is something about the Totality that is transcendent or inherent, why should we not have any route of access?<hr>
I'm not sure of what you mean by transcendent or inherent, with regard to the totality.

The reason we can have no access to Ultimate Truth is two-fold.

Firstly, any truth we can understand absolutely is defined by an axiomatic system. Yet no sufficiently strong axiomatic system can be both complete and consistent.

One cannot verify the validity of any axiomatic system from within - completeness. Being as existence is appearance to mind, and our understanding of the nature of existence is an axiomatic system, as is our understanding of the nature of the Totality, the validity of our understanding thereof cannot be verified.

Secondly, by implication, to analyse and therefore verify the validity of the answers produced by any axiomatic system, one must be able to get outside of it. And there's no getting outside of the totality, or it's appearance. Edited by: Dave Toast at: 10/30/03 1:03 am
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ----

Post by Dave Toast »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Wolf: There is no demarcation between Ultimate Reality and Regular Reality. The idea of one's trival existance in this reality (ultimate, regular, or other) is something that can lead to separation from that which causes suffering (desireing), and on to a newfound understanding and peace. To see the cycle for what it is, is to be reborn in some sense. It is an emotional achievement, founded in reason, but not limited to logic.<hr>
Nice.

This is the type of trancendence of 'regular states of consciousness' which is classically labelled 'enlightenment'. It has nothing to do with any understanding of a mythical Ultimate Reality, just a bog-standard understanding of certain key elements of the nature of reality. Perhaps not even that.

There are also other types of transcendence of 'regular states of consciousness' though. Which implies that the above 'ego-transcendence' is only a part of enlightenment, to my eyes. Perhaps the full hit is what some refer to as 'perfection'.
cassiopeiae
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:59 pm

Re: ----

Post by cassiopeiae »

Quote:Quote:<hr>It is what is meant when it is said that we are all enlightened, only we simply need to break through the delusions and remember it.<hr>

I think this sums it all up.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: ----

Post by birdofhermes »

Of course I agree that there is only one reality. The term ultimate reality as used here simply refers to the fact that most people have a limited and shallow understanding of the reality before them. Of course it's an oxymoron unless you take the word ultimate to refer, not to reality, but to one's understanding of it.

But why have we accepted that existence is appearance to mind
------------------------------------------------------------

Simply because appearance to mind defines what existence is.
Wow, that sounded just like David Quinn. but what does it mean. Does it mean that matter cannot exist without mind? Is consciousness necessary for existence?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Not quite sure what you mean by subordinate in this sense.<hr>Meaning, as you said, that mind is a part within the totality. Your arguments are making me rethink Nemo's position!

The rest of your post I must think about.
===

Toast, a while ago I said I would learn about string theory. Last night I watched a two-hour program about how string theory arose from the phsyics search from Newton to the present. I am in awe of what men have figured out. To me, this phsyicists' search of reality is the only real religion in the world, except of philosophical approaches like animism or pantheism. It is THE ONLY world religion today. I am floored by the lack of female input into all of it. Especially in light of the way that so much of this search is based on deep intuitive mental searchings. I wonder if the problem is in part because of the differing life cycles of men and women. A really brilliant man who intends to study science will have a tendency to want to delay marriage, whereas women have a strong pull to have a baby from an early age. I have always known, completely consciously, that I exchanged my academic ambitions for motherhood. I don't know if most people think much about it, but because as a child I intensely contemplated what my life would have been as a boy, I was aware of it.

I think women would do better to stop trying to copy men in their career patterns, and marry and have babies early, and free the ones who might like to jump in the fray to do so after about 40.

They left all sorts of loose ends in the program, probably because they are the ones that would be too technical to explain, and they are the ones I want to understand, such as the formulas that have been worked out in support of string theory and the other forces on the subatomic level.

My personal reaction to information like this versus the most inspiring spiritual works is pretty much identical.





Locked