Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: clicks

Post by Robert Larkin »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Because without understanding that which is are the basic underlying principle, all conceptual thoughts may be mistaken. You can't play cricket very well if you don't know the rules. - jimhaz<hr>
If we're discussing 'enlightenment' there are no rules, or that is how I read it.

"People cling to their petty concepts because of emotion and the sum of past cuases."

Jim, I actually wrote 'pretty concepts'; God knows I have some of my own. I labeled no concepts 'petty'. I think your explanation would play well here but not elsewhere. Try this one, and maybe it will work for you: People cling to concepts for sake of the profit they receive from them. Some people might be afraid to let go of some idea. Others believe espousing a particular concept makes them look important. There is no concept which can survive a change of the subject, Jim - fact of life.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Enlightenment is not about unburdening from conceptualization. It is about experiencing true understanding and true thoughts.

The concept of cause and effect, for example, when properly understood, is a true thought and needs to be protected against the false mythologies which currently surround quantum mechanics. - David<hr>
That's interesting, David, in that what I've come across all suggests there are absolutely zero true thoughts. Thoughts can have relative value - or relative uselessness - but their relationship to any truth is at best second hand.

Since I am only now working on your 'cause and effect' - and I note that you did not respond to my comment above suggesting the relative uselessness of any reliance on dependent co-origination - is there some other 'true thought' you could simply write out that any old Buddhist like myself could see to be true.

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> That's interesting, David, in that what I've come across all suggests there are absolutely zero true thoughts. Thoughts can have relative value - or relative uselessness - but their relationship to any truth is at best second hand. <hr> So I take it that you don't regard what you have just said here as being true?


Quote:Quote:<hr> Since I am only now working on your 'cause and effect' - and I note that you did not respond to my comment above suggesting the relative uselessness of any reliance on dependent co-origination - is there some other 'true thought' you could simply write out that any old Buddhist like myself could see to be true. <hr> I think it would be simpler if you stayed with cause and effect. If you are unable or unwilling to understand why it is necessarily true, and cannot appreciate its spiritual significance, then you're not going to be able to understand any of the deeper truths which follow on from it.



Quote:Quote:<hr>There is no concept which can survive a change of the subject, Jim - fact of life.
<hr> Except this concept, presumably.

Why do you keep saying things as though you believed them to be true? It makes you look very strange.
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: clicks

Post by Robert Larkin »


David,

To express truth via thought is impossible. Do you mean to tell me you don't understand it, that all we can do is draw second-hand pictures of at best relative usefulness?

Have you never had a silent mind? If you still hear 'the monkey chattering' as Zen puts it you still have work to do. You should understand that thought is a tool provided by evolution. It is subservient to awareness and which is itself not inherently verbal. It's the monkey we deal with in Zen, David, and I think yours is going full force.

Now there is no concept necessary to move from any point to any other point. Do you have any textual authority to back up such a claim? Or is the situation here that without sufficient forethought you have founded your system on cause and effect while either not knowing or ignoring that eastern psychology not only admits but demands the causeless.

You can either work on yourself some more, or you can learn some more so you can fake it better, but right now you're useless; you're a message board Buddha.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


With regard to David's attempts to cling to thought as the ground of truth, no one sufficiently educated in Buddhism or Taoism will take David's position to be accurate - or would agree he knows much of value.

I suggest my writing here either has or has not had some efficacy, as we humans have here communicated, and if it has had efficacy it has done so without claiming to be the truth. Buddhists and Taoists don't claim words are the truth; why does David Quinn claim it? He just didn't read enough?


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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

Robert Larkin
With regard to David's attempts to cling to thought as the ground of truth, no one sufficiently educated in Buddhism or Taoism will take David's position to be accurate - or would agree he knows much of value.

I suggest my writing here either has or has not had some efficacy, as we humans have here communicated, and if it has had efficacy it has done so without claiming to be the truth. Buddhists and Taoists don't claim words are the truth; why does David Quinn claim it? He just didn't read enough?

Robert, their philosophy is based on monkey mind and you are not the first to try and inform them. Good luck!

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

Re: clicks

Post by Kevin Solway »

Robert Larkin wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>To express truth via thought is impossible.<hr>

So you are telling us that the above statement is a second-hand picture of at best relative usefulness, right?

Also, if you don't believe the above statement (quoted) is true, why should I pay it any attention? Edited by: ksolway at: 1/30/04 4:24 pm
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, all you have done so far is accuse someone of being a fraud (which can, in Buddhist terms be viewed as a serious form of slander) just because they believe in what they call "cause and effect". You'll have to do better than that.

Did you hear of the story of the Zen Master, who, when quizzed at the gates to heaven, was asked "Tell us, when the Buddha attained enlightenment, did he escape cause and effect?". The Zen Master replied, "Yes", and was immediately reborn as a fox.
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


Kevin, I know the story as Hyakujo's Fox, in which a supposed master claims an enlightened man is beyond the law of causation and for which he's reborn 500 times as a fox. The story has a happy ending when he realizes the enlightened man is one with the law of causation.

David Quinn is the other side of the coin: You cannot be one with the law of causation (or truth or Tao) if you are clinging to it. For this he should receive 500 rebirths as a sheep, a dangerous matter on some farms in the world, yet given his views on women it is somehow also justice.

As to slander, let him bring his textual backing and I will humbly beg his pardon. So are words the ground of truth? Let's see it in Buddhism and Taoism. Until then no slander has occurred here.

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

Re: clicks

Post by Robert Larkin »

Usually arguments about the relativity of words occur with those who support Western philosophical positions. One would not expect to find it here where folks are claiming enlightenment. They have apparently not done the reading.

Consider Nagarjuna, an important figure in Mahayana Buddhism:
Quote:Quote:<hr>... Nagarjuna sought to liberate the mind from its tendencies to cling to tidy or clever formulations of truth, because any truth short of Sunyata, the voidness of reality, is inherently misleading. Relative truths are not like pieces of a puzzle, each of which incrementally adds to the complete design. They are plausible distortions of the truth and can seriously mislead the aspirant. They cannot be lightly or wholly repudiated, however, for they are all the seeker has, and so he must learn to use them as aids whilst remembering that they are neither accurate nor complete in themselves. ...

<a href="http://altzen.freeyellow.com/page9.html" target="top">Nagarjuna</a><hr>
According to Nagarjuna David Quinn is in error and 'relative truths' can be understood as tools we humans have with which to communicate. This is true for all thought, speech, and writing, and a horn honk is not the truth either. It's not a difficult concept, Kevin. Since Nagarjuna suggests it why don't you consider it?

And by the way I can keep bringing in text for quite a long long while to support my position ... Y'all got support for yours?

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 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>David Quinn is the other side of the coin: You cannot be one with the law of causation (or truth or Tao) if you are clinging to it.<hr>

I won't write at length here, as David will probably reply. But you should provide the reasons why you think David is clinging to the idea of cause and effect, instead of just using the concept of cause and effect as a tool, detachedly, in full knowledge of the non-inherent existence of both causes and effects. Otherwise it makes your accusation seem empty of substance.

Quote:Quote:<hr> . . . let him bring textual backing and I will humbly beg his pardon<hr>

Sometimes we do use textual supplementation on this forum (in the form of quotes from scriptures, etc), but for the most part we use our own reason.


Quote:Quote:<hr>. . . he must learn to use them as aids whilst remembering that they are neither accurate nor complete in themselves<hr>

That very statement is neither accurate nor complete. And that statement I just made is absolutely true.

By the way, that quote you gave looks like it was the translator or commentator speaking, as it begins "Nagarguna sought . . . ". So what you quoted was not the words of Nagarjuna. It sounds more like the words of a modern Buddhist, who is parroting the popular script.

Neither causes nor effects are inherently existent. This much is true.


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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


Kevin, use the link.

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

Re: clicks

Post by Robert Larkin »


"That very statement is neither accurate nor complete. And that statement I just made is absolutely true." If you think you can get absolute truth into that little sentence, boy are you deluded. Truth is the void; no word gonna get there nor could it ever get back.

Go back a few posts and you'll see discussion of thought being a tool of awareness. That was a clue, Kevin. No charge.

You'll have to use your own reason since having some familiarity with the material I know you have no support. You will have to argue against Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism in order to maintain your nonsense.

Lbartoli
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:49 am

?

Post by Lbartoli »

ksolway
Registered User
Posts: 317
(1/30/04 4:12 pm)
Reply
Re: clicks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Larkin wrote:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To express truth via thought is impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you are telling us that the above statement is a second-hand picture of at best relative usefulness, right?

Also, if you don't believe the above statement (quoted) is true, why

Did i miss the answer to this one? Leo
Robert Larkin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:28 am

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »


My impression of David's clinging to cause and effect derives from his ebook. If he insists his chapter on cause and effect is essential then I suggest he is clinging to it. Now does he insist it is essential, and why would it be so?

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

Re: ?

Post by Robert Larkin »

Leo, see mine, 1/30/04 5:35 pm

(I'm asking them to repudiate Nagarjuna who, if you are not familiar with him, is a 'biggie'. Keep at it long enough and they'll have reputiated Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism and probably truth, justice, and the American way just to keep their little game running, and then we can all have a smile and a cup of coffee.)

Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 1/30/04 6:47 pm
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> To express truth via thought is impossible. Do you mean to tell me you don't understand it, that all we can do is draw second-hand pictures of at best relative usefulness? <hr> 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.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Have you never had a silent mind? If you still hear 'the monkey chattering' as Zen puts it you still have work to do. You should understand that thought is a tool provided by evolution. It is subservient to awareness and which is itself not inherently verbal. It's the monkey we deal with in Zen, David, and I think yours is going full force. <hr> Alas, there are a lot of thoughts here and none of them are true.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Now there is no concept necessary to move from any point to any other point. Do you have any textual authority to back up such a claim? Or is the situation here that without sufficient forethought you have founded your system on cause and effect while either not knowing or ignoring that eastern psychology not only admits but demands the causeless. <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.


Quote:Quote:<hr> With regard to David's attempts to cling to thought as the ground of truth, no one sufficiently educated in Buddhism or Taoism will take David's position to be accurate - or would agree he knows much of value. <hr> Where is the evidence that I cling to thought as the ground of truth?


Quote:Quote:<hr> I suggest my writing here either has or has not had some efficacy, as we humans have here communicated, and if it has had efficacy it has done so without claiming to be the truth. Buddhists and Taoists don't claim words are the truth; why does David Quinn claim it? He just didn't read enough? <hr> Where have I claimed this?

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!


--

John wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> Robert, their philosophy is based on monkey mind and you are not the first to try and inform them. Good luck! <hr> This division into "still mind" and "monkey mind" is itself a product of the monkey mind and has no real existence. An enlightened sage can chatter all day and make use of thousands of different concepts and yet still be dwelling in the stillness of enlightenment.
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> My impression of David's clinging to cause and effect derives from his ebook. If he insists his chapter on cause and effect is essential then I suggest he is clinging to it. Now does he insist it is essential, and why would it be so? <hr> Meditation on cause and effect is essential to breaking down delusions of inherent existence, which in turn is essential to realizing the nature of Reality.


Quote:Quote:<hr> I'm asking them to repudiate Nagarjuna who, if you are not familiar with him, is a 'biggie'. <hr> I'm in full agreement with Nagarjuna, so I don't have any desire to repudiate him. Indeed, if you think that I am at odds with Nagarjuna, then your understanding of both he and I is limited.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: clicks

Post by David Quinn »

Robert Larkin wrote, to Kevin:

Quote:Quote:<hr> "That very statement is neither accurate nor complete. And that statement I just made is absolutely true." If you think you can get absolute truth into that little sentence, boy are you deluded. Truth is the void; no word gonna get there nor could it ever get back.

You'll have to use your own reason since having some familiarity with the material I know you have no support. You will have to argue against Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism in order to maintain your nonsense. <hr> If no words can express truth, then why are you urging Kevin to read certain materials?

You are one screwed up pussy cat . . . . . .
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

DavidQuinn000
John wrote:
Quote:
------------------------
Robert, their philosophy is based on monkey mind and you are not the first to try and inform them. Good luck!
------------------------

This division into "still mind" and "monkey mind" is itself a product of the monkey mind and has no real existence. An enlightened sage can chatter all day and make use of thousands of different concepts and yet still be dwelling in the stillness of enlightenment.

It's not difficult to say such things.

However when I've pointed you towards words of the masters that are obviously not in agreement with your stance you resort to slandering them so no one with a modicum of sense can take you seriously.

For example I have posted on this forum a quote from Hakuin where he says that

"...he will surely come to see that the ground where the ancients lived and functioned is not found at any level of intellectual understanding."

And yet you continually resort to advocating intellectual understanding as a means to develope the Buddha mind, continuely defend the road of concepts etc.

If your stance was in keeping with the ancient masters I doubt you would have so many dissenters on this forum and then the important work could go forward. As things stand most of the posts here are a waste of time.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by jimhaz »

Kevin: Instead of just using the concept of cause and effect as a tool, detachedly, in full knowledge of the non-inherent existence of both causes and effects

I don't properly understand this.

Thinking about it, I can imagine that cause and effect is just the process that is, and to separate the two concepts as being different might be to apply an unnecessary separation and that is why it is just a 'tool'. However, I still see the process as an rule of existence, a process of inherent change.

<hr />

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.
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 »

John quoted Hakuin:

Quote:Quote:<hr>"...he will surely come to see that the ground where the ancients lived and functioned is not found at any level of intellectual understanding."<hr>

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.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by Robert Larkin »

Quote:Quote:<hr>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. - David Quinn<hr>
When the Sutras and scriptures indicate words are not themselves the truth you are profoundly contradicted. You have moved away from defending 'true thoughts' and now you are talking about words 'pointing' to truth. You have caved. Where is the textual basis for any 'true thought'? Either defend it or admit there is no such thing as a 'true thought'.
_____

"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?
_____

"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?
_____

"Where is the evidence that I cling to thought as the ground of truth?"

It may take a while but it's a'comin'.
_____

Buddhists and Taoists don't claim words are the truth; why does David Quinn claim it? "Where have I claimed this?"

"The concept of cause and effect ... is a true thought ..." - David Quinn, 1/30/04 11:17 am

Compare with "The concept of cause and effect is a useful tool for breaking down our delusions of inherent existence. It is nothing more than that." David is contradicting himself.
_____

"I'm in full agreement with Nagarjuna, so I don't have any desire to repudiate him. Indeed, if you think that I am at odds with Nagarjuna, then your understanding of both he and I is limited." - I suggest not only that you are not in agreement with Nagarjuna but that you cannot understand him. (If you could understand Nagarjuna you would know you are not in agreement with Nagarjuna.)

You wrote subsequently: "If no words can express truth, then why are you urging Kevin to read certain materials?

You are one screwed up pussy cat . . . . . . "

And you still claim you are in full agreement with Nagarjuna? Did you bother to check the link I provided? Novice monks would be ahead of you!

"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. " - Nagarjuna himself, so Kevin can't weasel out of it.

Nagarjuna, <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bod ... nyata.html" target="top">the no-weasel link.</a>
_____

"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!"

A purely technical question here, David, can you (yourself, personally) not think?
_____

John: "Robert, their philosophy is based on monkey mind ..." I don't know if you were laughing as you wrote that but I was laughing there. Thank you, John.

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality

Post by John »

Robert Larkin
John: "Robert, their philosophy is based on monkey mind ..." I don't know if you were laughing as you wrote that but I was laughing there. Thank you, John.

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

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 »


Kevin, if you're familiar with that school then you should be able to find some evidence backing up your position, shouldn't you?



Locked