Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

I have done much laughing here but overall I've been saddened

Generally I find that to be an emotional effect of truths one does not wish to recognise.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Kevin Solway »

Robert, when a person says that something is "true", it doesn't automatically mean they are deluded on that count, and it is irrational to think that it does. It fact, it reveals your own attachment to the word "true".
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

Was just having a look at Genius News, and coincidently the next thing I read after my last post was this.

David Quinn: I suppose the Truth could be called "super-rational" in a sense - but really, it is no more super-rational than is the colour red, or the sound of a flute, or indeed any experience at all. None of our experiences of the world is capturable by our concepts, words or logic, and the experience of Truth is no different. But then, that is not the function of these things.

The use of concepts and logic is akin to using a map. One needs a map to find the Grand Canyon, say, but it isn't the map's job to capture the essence and experience of the Grand Canyon itself. Once you reach your destination, you put the map aside and simply use your eyes and ears.

The path to Truth is no different. Reason takes you to the threshold, and reason also tells you how to cross the threshold, and only then do you put reason aside, cross the threshold, and experience the Truth directly
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

ksolway
----------------------------------------
John quoted Hakuin:
Quote:
----------------------------------------
"...he will surely come to see that the ground where the ancients lived and functioned is not found at any level of intellectual understanding."
----------------------------------------

Unfortunately, your intellectual understanding of that teaching is wrong. However, Hakuin's teaching is correct when properly understood. Hakuin is referring to the deluded use of the intellect, rather than the enlightened use of it. In fact, of all the different kinds of Zen Buddhism, Hakuin's school of Buddhism is the most intellectual of all. That's why I favour it.

You have consistently missed the point of either Hakuin's teachings or any other Ch'an master.

My guess is that you are fatally attached you your own interpretations that revolve around your own concepts, this is the danger of pursuing an intellectual path and is a well documented pitfall. In fact it is considered the worst of ailments.

John
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

John,

I'm beginning to feel like Hannibal. I own the place but I'll never win. Seriously, there are people who take them to be knowledgeable. Voce io has deluded himself, apparently, and the influence given him here cannot have helped. This is not a board I would want to spend real time on.



<a href="http://pub138.ezboard.com/bponderersguild" target="top">The Ponderer's Guild</a>

<a href="http://pub16.ezboard.com/brealism" target="top">KIR</a>

<a href="http://pub158.ezboard.com/bolio80114" target="top">olio</a>

Olio is the least of the three but I did co-found it and it is often an amusing place. You might get a kick out of our front page graphics. Seems someone from genius forum has already visited us. Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 1/30/04 8:30 pm
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

'Robert, when a person says that something is "true", it doesn't automatically mean they are deluded on that count, and it is irrational to think that it does. It fact, it reveals your own attachment to the word "true".' - Kevin

It reveals no such attachment; that's an irrational conclusion. Further, you have claimed all along to be able to express the truth in words.

But let's have a clarification and make certain we're on the same page. Is there such a thing as David's 'true thought'? Is any concept true?

jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

The Ponderers Guild

Seems like a good place for those who wish to forever remain a degree or some degrees below enlightened.

From a brief look, the discussions appear as if they will never reach a conclusion. The discussions are intelligent but not ultimate.

After being here for 2 and a bit years, I'm now glad I didn't find that forum before this one.


John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

Robert Larkin
The Ponderer's Guild

KIR

olio

Olio is the least of the three but I did co-found it and it is often an amusing place. You might get a kick out of our front page graphics. Seems someone from genius forum has already visited us.

I'll take a look, thanks.

John
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


Jim,

Don't worry about enlightenment in the sense of comparing it, there vs. here. If you can quantify it the way you just did you've got the wrong idea, at least according to what I've read. And you're anyway more likely to find enlightentenment taking your next pee than you are on this place.

I did appreciate your find. It appears David Quinn does indeed give mixed messages on 'words'. Likely he or Kevin has a handy explanation for it.

Quote:Quote:<hr> From Jim:

Robert: ...You should understand that thought is a tool provided by evolution. It is subservient to awareness and which is itself not inherently verbal....

David: Alas, there are a lot of thoughts here and none of them are true.

I also do not understand why these two statements are not true.

The former statement I believe to be true in itself, and the latter one I would amend to "Awareness is the non-verbal base from which thought as a higher level of consciousness can evolve". That however still makes it subservient. - Jim<hr>
They take them to be false because they've never made it to any kind of real awareness. "Awareness" to them is only a word.

The big issue here is psychological freedom. We are conditioned by our cultures and one can look at the world and see the results of that conditioning. If we are going to be free of that conditioning we need not only to be aware of the concepts we have been presented but also to put them in their proper place in human existence.

Nagarjuna wrote 1800 years ago, and which would have given David and Kevin ample time to read it, "Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. "

Nagarjuna points to awareness which holds no concept to be the truth, an awareness which is beyond thought yet can make use of it just as it can make use of its opposable thumbs. The human mind is above such thoughts as these people produce, and they don't like that idea. They don't have the humility for it. Any reasonable person would doubt they are 'enlightened'.

Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

I hope you do, John. (You're welcome too, Jim, if you won't talk about enlightenment. Everyone's welcome.) If we can get a few more people interested at Olio we can open up a forum for 'good talk' about Han-shan and Shih-ti, and burning the Buddha images to warm our butts, and "'What is the nature of our religion?' - 'Buns.'"

Do you know this one: A week of sesshin* had just ended and the master called together the students to say, 'We've all meditated diligently so let's thank the Buddha because we all had a great enlightenment. And if we didn't have a great enlightenment then at least we had a minor awakening. And if we didn't have a minor awakening at least we developed some insight. And if we didn't develop any insight at least we didn't get sick. And if we did get sick at least we didn't die. So let's thank the Buddha!'


*"intensive meditation" for those who do not have that particular piece of jargon in their lexicon of the useless.

Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


I must sleep now; way past my bedtime in St. Louis, Missouri. (Olio has members on six continents; my co-founder is an Englishman living in Australia. We are looking for amusing penguins so we can have all seven continents represented.)

When I get back I trust the Nagarjuna and all the other issues will be suitably rationalized. Bye!

Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Kevin Solway »


Robert, you have a serious attachment to the word "truth".

Quote:Quote:<hr>Nagarjuna points to awareness which holds no concept to be the truth<hr>

It is important for you to acknowledge that Nagarjuna, unlike yourself, never says that no statement can ever be true.

A concept is just that - a concept. How can a concept, itself, be "truth"? No. A concept is a concept, and a truth is a truth. It's very clear. I don't know why you are confusing concepts with truth.

As far as "truth" goes. If you associate the word "truth" with something inherently existent (ie, something impossible) then that is your business, however, you shouldn't be confusing your use of the word with the way other people use it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. "
- Nagarjuna<hr>

Yes, I've read Nagarjuna many years ago, and agree with what he says.
Edited by: ksolway at: 1/30/04 9:27 pm
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

Robert Larkin
I hope you do, John. (You're welcome too, Jim, if you won't talk about enlightenment. Everyone's welcome.) If we can get a few more people interested at Olio we can open up a forum for 'good talk' about Han-shan and Shih-ti, and burning the Buddha images to warm our butts, and "'What is the nature of our religion?' - 'Buns.'"

Yes do that and I'll certainly come along.

Do you know this one: A week of sesshin* had just ended and the master called together the students to say, 'We've all meditated diligently so let's thank the Buddha because we all had a great enlightenment. And if we didn't have a great enlightenment then at least we had a minor awakening. And if we didn't have a minor awakening at least we developed some insight. And if we didn't develop any insight at least we didn't get sick. And if we did get sick at least we didn't die. So let's thank the Buddha!'

Yes.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

There is a lot of irony and double-play going on in this conversation. For example John and Robert both believe that truth does not reside in words, and yet they keep refering to scripture as though it were the last word on truth.

They also have a very fixed image of what constitutes the behaviour of a Zen Master or an enlightened sage - which, again, is an image that comes from words in scripture.

They both lack the wisdom and flexibility of mind to commmunicate truth outside the Zen scripts. And they both openly condemn those who do not believe that truth can be locked up in words and who therefore use all sorts of different words to express themselves.

Ah, the irony!

--

Robert Larkin wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: This is a common, lazy viewpoint. In reality, words and thoughts are perfectly capable of pointing the mind's attention to the nature of Truth. That is the reason why scriptures and sutras exist.

RL: When the Sutras and scriptures indicate words are not themselves the truth you are profoundly contradicted. <hr> Once again, why do you treat the words contained within the scriptures as though they are the truth?


Quote:Quote:<hr> You have moved away from defending 'true thoughts' and now you are talking about words 'pointing' to truth. You have caved. <hr> A true thought is one that points the mind towards Truth.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Where is the textual basis for any 'true thought'? <hr> There you go again - hunting for truth within words. You really must be thick as a brick.



Quote:Quote:<hr> "Alas, there are a lot of thoughts here and none of them are true."

One of the things there was a question: Has your mind ever been still? Have you ever known a second of tranquility through the silencing of thought? <hr> I know something far greater than this - a wisdom that is beyond both movement and stillness.


Quote:Quote:<hr> "The concept of cause and effect is a useful tool for breaking down our delusions of inherent existence. It is nothing more than that."

But you wrote in your ebook, "... It is quite a fascinating phenomenon when you reflect upon it. After all, it must be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that cause and effect is fundamentally important to our understanding of the world. Not only must it necessarily form the kernel of any theory we care to create about the world, but it is visible in every aspect of our daily lives. It is the ultimate explanation of all things; it is the final fruition of wielding Ockham's razor to the fullest extent; it is the Theory of Everything boiled down to its purest essence. I mean, what a prize! Surely, you would think, such an obvious all-pervasive principle would present an exciting avenue of investigation for anyone even remotely interested in philosophy and spirituality. And yet it is universally ignored the world over. No one ever talks about it or thinks about it. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing. Something is seriously amiss here. ..."

So which is it, David? <hr> Both. The truth that everything is caused, which everyone wants to ignore, is an excellent tool for breaking down the delusion of inherent existence.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: "I think you've come to this forum with a closed mind and full of prejudices as to what I am about. If you really want to have a worthwhile conversation with me, then you are going to have stop projecting all this rubbish onto me. Talk about a monkey mind!"

RL: A purely technical question here, David, can you (yourself, personally) not think? <hr> Yes, every time I go to sleep at night.

Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Kevin Solway »

Robert Larkin wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kevin, if you're familiar with that school then you should be able to find some evidence backing up your position, shouldn't you?<hr>

Here's a piece of brilliant use of the intellect by Hakuin:

Quote:Quote:<hr>&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp At present, we are infested in this country with a race of smooth-tongued, worldly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. "Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?" they ask you. "It is," they answer, "because words and letters are a coast of rocky cliffs washed constantly by vast oceans of poison ready to swallow your wisdom and drown the life from it. Giving students stories and episodes from the Zen past and having them penetrate their meaning is a practice that did not start until after the Zen school had already branched out into the Five Houses, and they were developing into the Seven Schools. Koan study represents a provisional teaching aid which teachers have devised to bring students up to the threshold of the house of Zen so as to enable them to enter the dwelling itself. It has nothing directly to do with the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers."
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.<hr>

When an enlightened person says that something is true, he is using what Hakuin often calls "direct pointing". Such a statement of truth is like an advanced koan.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

Robert

..an awareness which is beyond thought yet can make use of it just as it can make use of its opposable thumbs.

I do not sense this awareness as you speak of it above. The only basic level awareness I am aware of is the awareness that life must do things to continue life. However, this is not an awareness that one can make use of. To make use of anything requires thought.

You seem to be saying the 'awareness beyond thought' is where reason comes from. Sure to a lower level animal that would be true, an otter can build a dam, a worm can dig a hole, but such awareness is at such a low level that it is meaningless to humans.

The QRS indicate they have an automatic awareness of truth. What better thing to seek than that!

Nagarjuna wrote 1800 years ago, and which would have given David and Kevin ample time to read it, "Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. "

The way I see it is that David is saying exactly the same thing in the quote I posted.

<hr />

With regard to other forums (and I know you'll take this the wrong way)

I have become a closed system in regard to other philosophical forums. I don't see the point. Any other forum I've been to lacks the reasoning that the QRS provide here. There seems to be too much general chat or too much attachment to single historically acceptable streams of thought. Too much beating around the bush, although there is lot of that here as well.

If I went to those forums I'd take with me what I've learnt here, and as I lack sufficient patience, linguist ability, general knowledge and consistency to argue my case, it would perhaps make me regress into emotion.

I've decided that I would prefer to live without emotional swings, and the truths I find here appeal to the way my mind works. The forum makes me unemotional and gives me hope that I may someday be able to remove my destructive attachments. I feel other forums, counsellors and group support type organisations would not provide the true will for me to change permanently. I'm not saying I will change, as the forum is not yet more than a hobby to me but over time I hope to.

You'll probably say I'll end up losing my sanity here, and by jingies I'm starting to hope I will. A good dose of 'Schizoid Personality Disorder' as per David Quinn would do me the world of good :). Honestly.

Realistically the only thing I can lose is the security of the money my job provides (a very strong attachment) and as I work for the Public Service in a clerical position I can assure you that is more likely to be positive. With my current set of attachments I have a high chance of being dead by 50, I'm 42 so it isn't much to lose.

Don't think I'm some kind of mindless parrot or feminine male who has succumbed to the wise teacher. That would be the case if I took everything they say for granted and never brought forth my own opinions. I remain sceptical of the whole Ultimate Reality theory both as being able to provide the outcomes I seek and of being the real ultimate answer to the enigma of Why? - and so I should as so few would be able to get to their equivalent level and thus find contentment.

Realise also that my activity here over the last week is abnormal behaviour for me, due to an a rare absence of both alcohol and ganja. My drive for truth is still in it's infancy, but it feels good that I can concieve of developing one.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 1/30/04 10:20 pm
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


By the way, what is this QRS thing?

Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

"There is a lot of irony and double-play going on in this conversation. For example John and Robert both believe that truth does not reside in words, and yet they keep refering to scripture as though it were the last word on truth."

John and Robert both believe that truth does not reside in words, and yet they keep talking ... We talk because that is how humans communicate. We bring in references to support our points because those who are reading other than David and Kevin can potentially see the wisdom in them. There is nothing ironic in human beings talking nor in referring to wisdom to discuss a situation. What is ironic is that a so-called enlightened person would be so devious as to attempt to make it seem otherwise.


"I know something far greater than this - a wisdom that is beyond both movement and stillness."

Naturally you didn't really answer the question and I just don't believe you. I don't have the time or the inclination to argue with you here so let's cut to the chase, David: I challenge you to debate on a neutral site. I'm sure The Ponderer's Guild or KIR would be amused to have it. Shall I attempt to set it up?
_____

Kevin,

Reliance on koan continues through today; it has become ritualized. The fact Hakuin recognized the danger does not mean he disagrees with Nagarjuna whom he counts as a Patriarch; it is no affirmation that truth is in words. Hakuin did not say that. Your empty mention of the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers is not itself profound. Good try, although pity you're attempting to fool people. You're a bit of a fox yourself.
_____

Jim,

I'm not going to plead with you to be sensible but I will ask you to consider what is the nature of a human being. Don't worry about what is the nature of the pretend gods around here, but ask what is the nature of being human. That is where a real solution must lie and not in some make-believe. Turn off the computer, take a walk, enjoy the afternoon light. There will be more beauty and more meaning there than you will ever encounter on this message board.

Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 1/31/04 1:02 am
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

Robert. OK your compassion is noted, but as I sense myself improving mentally due to this forum, I have no choice. I'm cognisant of the dangers and am also aware that so few extremely bright people who have questioned the Quinn, Rowden, Solway (QRS) concepts far more critically and more openly than you and John do not frequent the forum anymore. I ask myself why and I think I'll stick around until I know, as yet I have not digested enough to form a reasoned opinion. if the process of digesting info means it is to late to turn back, then so be it.

<hr />

Back to the original basis of this thread,QM. I found a couple of relevant articles that I found interesting.
It is worth a look.

<a href="http://www.naturequest.net/Science_Site ... es.html</a>

I must warn you however, that it is one of the worst sites I have come across in terms of user friendliness.

Topics
"We have posted a critical-view article on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle challenging its contention that it represents a "law of Nature" and challenging therefore the entire foundation of Quantum Theory.

We have posted two (2) critical-view articles challenging Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity at its very foundation:
--one, dealing with the relativistic mass-energy concept;
--the other, dealing with the relativistic space-time concept.
WolfsonJakk
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by WolfsonJakk »

Once I also wrapped myself in scripture to protect myself from the cold. One day I realized I was no longer cold and no longer needed the scripture. It worked well when it was needed. This is David's point.

QRS is an acronym for Quinn/Rowden/Solway, the administrators and founders of this forum.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Robert Larkin wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: "There is a lot of irony and double-play going on in this conversation. For example John and Robert both believe that truth does not reside in words, and yet they keep refering to scripture as though it were the last word on truth."

RL: John and Robert both believe that truth does not reside in words, and yet they keep talking ... We talk because that is how humans communicate. <hr> You're being evasive. It's pretty obvious that your understanding of spiritual truth comes, not from an inner understanding, but second-hand from Zen scripture. This is what makes your assertions that truth does not reside in words so ludricrous. If someone else had uttered this assertion, it might be worthy of consideration. But coming from your mouth, it sounds ludicrous.


Quote:Quote:<hr> I don't have the time or the inclination to argue with you here so let's cut to the chase, David: I challenge you to debate on a neutral site. I'm sure The Ponderer's Guild or KIR would be amused to have it. Shall I attempt to set it up? <hr> Sure, why not. Although, of course, there is no use pretending that Ponderer's Guild or KIR are "neutral". I've been on those forums before and they are both filled with people who are as much slaves to scripture as you are.

But no matter. There is no such thing as a "neutral venue" when it comes to matters of truth.
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

Thanks, David. The Ponderer's Guild owner, Guildenstern, has tentatively agreed to host the debate and he makes the suggestions that there should be 1. a moderated debate; 2. no distractions in the debate thread, i.e., comments by others will be made in a separate thread; and 3. that the topic be adequately framed for coherent debate. He might have additional suggestions to make after the TPG mods and admins have their inputs.

With regard to framing the topic I would like to hear your suggestions since it was I who made the challenge. Naturally I would decline to debate what isn't worth debating but I'm sure you can suggest some relevant topics.

All TPG rules are to be followed in the conduct of the debate and they are reasonable rules. They're linked on the main page if you're not familiar with them. Do please contribute your own ideas about format as well as topic.

cassiopeiae
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:59 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by cassiopeiae »

oooh a duel...*cough*, I mean, debate...
Reid Iford
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:19 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Reid Iford »

I find the entire concept of debate -- partuicularly of the kind here -- antithetical to an awakened Buddha Heart.

It has been my own experience that words are a valuable and usually necesary tool to point an awakened one on their journey, but that ultimately they can become traps.

The words of "old wise men" are perhaps the most dangerous and treacherous traps of all. They take on a power and mysticism which begins to cloud the fact that they are simply a reflection of what someone was thinking at that moment.

And unless we KNOW they are the actual, literal words of that person -- and not words passed on orally (and modified in each telling) -- then we really don't know who we are quoting.

There is one thought in some branches of Buddhist philosophy I particularly enjoy:

A compassionate, enlightened Buddha would say "Each person (spiritually) is exactly where they should be at exactly this instant."

From that perspective, no one is right or wrong, and no one should be criticized by another.

I have always felt the greatest failure in Buddhism is when people try too hard to define what is right and what is the truth... and HOW one goes about determing all this.

On His own path to enlightenment, Buddha did not become a Buddhist. He did not follow Buddhism. He cleared his mind of misconceptions and words and set off to find His own way.

I feel -- at least for myself -- that this is the only real "path" that matters. To put it another way, the "right way (or path) for you is the one you discover is right for you."

"I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old. I seek the things they sought." Basho

The usual advice I give people on these topics -- or who ask me for the right way to "seek the truth" as if I would know that! -- is I tell them simply to go "sit under a tree!" ;)

A friend sent me the link to this thread. I read it, but found it disturbing and unpleasent. I am not comfortable being exposed to this.

Thank you for allowing me to post here.

Namaste.

"Quan Yin pu sa"
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Realise also that my activity here over the last week is abnormal behaviour for me, due to an a rare absence of both alcohol and ganja.<hr> Ya gotta love this guy.
Locked