What Insights Have You Experienced?

[Russell Parr]

Either God is the cause of every form or God is not the cause of every form, thoughts are forms.

I see God as the whole of causality rather than as a primal cause. Causation doesn't cause forms, only forms (things) cause other forms. Causation is the infinite interconnectivity of all things. Forms are finite categorizations of causality.

It is not logical to conclude that a finite thing performs a finite thing, i.e., a thought performs a thought. Here you are presenting the impossible scenario of an effect causing an effect. Logically, the infinite (spirit or will) causes the finite to appear and when one is, to borrow David Quinn's phrase, "immersed in the infinite", they are one with cause and effect, spirit and thought, aka, the absolute.

An effect isn't its cause, but it becomes a cause. Causation is in fact the very act of becoming. So to be immerse in the Infinite is to be in full recognition of the infinite causal nature permeating all forms, thus relinquishing any clinging to forms.

[Russell Parr]

At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous.

Wrong, there is no truth without thought.

Any of the following could be substituted for the word “truth” in the sentence.

Absolute, The Totality, The Causality, God, The Tao, Infinite Self, The Infinite.

Would any of these make the sentence right?

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

[ardy]

Cahoot: Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic. At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous. In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way. At the actual moment of truth, something other than thought takes over. Not during all that precedes the moment, but at the actual moment. I’ve known this experience, and walked away. From that experience, and others, I’ve identified that which took over. I’ve applied the knowledge associated with this identification, to analysis of memories. I have taken the principle and applied it to change the present, not only in the observation of events, but as a participant in the creation of reality. The other something has appeared at other moments of truth. And I can see how, by identifying this thing other than thought, and applying thought to it, a philosophy can be formed in which the moment of truth is defined, dualistically, though this something is not a thing at all, and is not dualistic. It can be given words but this will add static to the reception. But truly, the inner does become the outer, at the moment of truth, if you walk away. I don’t know what happens, with certainty, if you don’t.

Very interesting - I did something similar in this area about 25 years ago. I was one of those people who remained calm up to a point when I would 'lose' it and become cold and deadly in my anger.

I read somewhere that there is a point where you can recognise the impending anger. I watched it over a year or so and came to recognise not just the point where I would lose it but also that I enjoyed the ego burst that came from anger. I now only let it go if it has a role to play.

Some of this recognition is at the first nen area of thought but this is the only area where I seem to be able to control it.

Using will to control anger is certainly a known path to co-exist in society. This is why it's taught, and often insisted upon by teachers.

However, in terms of the absolute, there is a significant element of trust in surrendering control of anger to intent and energy. Surrendering control is to surrender fear. That fear can take many forms, depending on what one knows. One might know nothing and be fearless, or one might have read a few things and have a fear of becoming uncontrollably disassociative in perception. That’s why, when you reach the point where you really don’t give a fuck, which is a point no one really chooses, what happens after that is in God’s hands.

Find the principle behind controlling anger and you find the principle that applies to the motive force that initiates the proper physical movement, in every situation, even if ego perceives that movement to be a stumble.

As you know from meditation, look at it this way. At first, with considerable energy and effort, the cause for every physical movement can be intellectually identified. The intellect can keep up for awhile in identifying the motive force that initiates every physical movement, but it’s taxing to familiar resources. That’s why Zen walking meditation looks kind of silly. People walking slowly, intellect following along, maybe directing the walk. Intellect keeping up with every motion, even diaphragm movements, moving slowly.

Introduce walking meditation without end when intent and energy are strong and the two of them will outlast the intellect in maintaining constant attention on present-time physical motion, though if the intellect is strong, or too firmly entrenched in its machinations, there will be a struggle.

The reason for doing such things as walking meditation, when they are necessary to do, is simple. To find the endless principle of why one moves at all, is to find the one motive force that applies to all situations. In other words, to find the truth that exists in stillness, which holds the imminent potential for movement, is to find the motive force that initiates all movement, is to find the ineffable that seekers sometimes attempt to eff with the intellect.

Walking meditation is called Kin Hin (sp?) at the place I started at. A friend of mine who started the Sydney Zen Centre told me a story a couple of weeks ago about a Japanese monk who would visit them in Sydney. The first couple of times he insisted on walking to the venue. It took so bloody long that after the second visit they would whisk him into a car before he could ask.

I forget who made the quote 'sometimes you feel as if you have to eff the ineffable' but I did read it years ago in an early zen book - maybe Robert Aitkin? not sure.

Kin Hin never did it for me but I did enjoy the 'working surfaces' which is similar. The one I enjoyed was the feel of things in my fingers and the end result of that concentration. The sensation of concentrating on the tyres on the car meeting the road as I drove and the movement of the wheels via the steering wheel.

The cause behind all things became obvious to me many years ago, but I feel as if I have forgotten it or I found it to be of little use in my day to day life. It's funny how things of great import at the time diminish over time.

My great grip on life is getting weaker and I am not sure whether I am enjoying it or if it is just a stage on the way to a hole in the ground! Therefore, although I am seriously interested in all of these things it is not a driving force in my life any more - I think this is called failure, but I am not sure.....

[ardy]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

Russell you are the cause of the infinite and this is what makes you permanent (as long as you don't expect to wake up in some heaven or hell!)

[Cahoot]

I forget who made the quote 'sometimes you feel as if you have to eff the ineffable' but I did read it years ago in an early zen book - maybe Robert Aitkin? not sure.

Interesting. I never read the phrase before I wrote it.

My great grip on life is getting weaker and I am not sure whether I am enjoying it or if it is just a stage on the way to a hole in the ground! Therefore, although I am seriously interested in all of these things it is not a driving force in my life any more - I think this is called failure, but I am not sure.....

I think everyone eventually discovers that there is no you to resist the motive force that caused Buddha to make the first move to stand up under the Bodhi tree and walk out into the world.

[Cahoot]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

- There is no reality without thought.

- At the actual moment of reality, thought is superfluous.

Would you say that either of these sentences is right?

[Russell Parr]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

Russell you are the cause of the infinite and this is what makes you permanent (as long as you don't expect to wake up in some heaven or hell!)

The Infinite isn't caused or it wouldn't be infinite. "I" am but a temporal and finite part of the Infinite, and my existence extends only as far as I appear to exist. Otherwise, at bottom, there is nothing but the Infinite.

The heaven and hell ideas are an example of what the ego desires permanence to be, something that unequivocally involves itself.

[Russell Parr]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

- There is no reality without thought.

Reality precedes thought, though the idea or realization of reality can only come from thought.

- At the actual moment of reality, thought is superfluous.

Nothing is superfluous in reality. All things, including thought, are perfect manifestations of reality.

Would you say that either of these sentences is right?

I would say there is a confusion of concepts!

[Cahoot]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

- There is no reality without thought.

Reality precedes thought, though the idea or realization of reality can only come from thought.

- At the actual moment of reality, thought is superfluous.

Nothing is superfluous in reality. All things, including thought, are perfect manifestations of reality.

Would you say that either of these sentences is right?

I would say there is a confusion of concepts!

Since truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality (Webster’s), rather than the act of thinking about fact or reality ...

thought of being in accord with fact or reality, or realization of being in accord, is superfluous to being in accord with fact or reality.

[Russell Parr]

Since truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality (Webster’s), rather than the act of thinking about fact or reality ...

thought of being in accord with fact or reality, or realization of being in accord, is superfluous to being in accord with fact or reality.

Truth is the property of thought "being in accord with fact or reality". Truth doesn't exist without thought, it is a dualistic designation that applies to concepts conjured up in the mind.

Truth is a thing, and all things are caused. It isn't an inherent property of reality, it is rather a finite part of reality.

[ardy]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

Russell you are the cause of the infinite and this is what makes you permanent (as long as you don't expect to wake up in some heaven or hell!)

The Infinite isn't caused or it wouldn't be infinite. "I" am but a temporal and finite part of the Infinite, and my existence extends only as far as I appear to exist. Otherwise, at bottom, there is nothing but the Infinite.

The heaven and hell ideas are an example of what the ego desires permanence to be, something that unequivocally involves itself.

Russell - If you don't cause the infinite who/what does? It is also infinite because at your base you are as well.

[ardy]

Moments come and go, and so does truth. The Infinite alone is permanent. Truth is what we infer about reality, it is a dualistic categorization of thought, it isn't reality itself.

- There is no reality without thought.

Reality precedes thought, though the idea or realization of reality can only come from thought.

- At the actual moment of reality, thought is superfluous.

Nothing is superfluous in reality. All things, including thought, are perfect manifestations of reality.

Would you say that either of these sentences is right?

I would say there is a confusion of concepts!

Since truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality (Webster’s), rather than the act of thinking about fact or reality ...

thought of being in accord with fact or reality, or realization of being in accord, is superfluous to being in accord with fact or reality.

Cahoot: What is hard is trying to explain to someone that reality does not need thought to exist, it just bubbles along beneath us and most of the time we are not aware of it. It strikes me that we become aware of reality after an event of it bumping us out of our dream of reality.

[ardy]

I forget who made the quote 'sometimes you feel as if you have to eff the ineffable' but I did read it years ago in an early zen book - maybe Robert Aitkin? not sure.

Interesting. I never read the phrase before I wrote it.

My great grip on life is getting weaker and I am not sure whether I am enjoying it or if it is just a stage on the way to a hole in the ground! Therefore, although I am seriously interested in all of these things it is not a driving force in my life any more - I think this is called failure, but I am not sure.....

I think everyone eventually discovers that there is no you to resist the motive force that caused Buddha to make the first move to stand up under the Bodhi tree and walk out into the world.

Ah! true Cahoot, but the loss of the rubbish we drag around with us is huge. I guess it is like a guy who has pulled a rickshaw all their life - they are relieved but miss it.. A bit like me in retirement!

The standing up is the critical path. Action rules thought (to keep Russell interested?)

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot: What is hard is trying to explain to someone that reality does not need thought to exist, it just bubbles along beneath us and most of the time we are not aware of it.

What you are describing is animal consciousness. Are you suggesting we abandon self consciousness and wisdom consciousness, both of which are thought dependent and be as cows grazing in the field?

Where I see you as being on the journey of truth finding (correct me if I am wrong) is the coming to the silence of the intellect for the sake of intuiting the emptiness of form and because the intellect has been silenced for the sake of this awakening, you have interpreted its temporary muting as a sign that it is unnecessary/superfluous. I assume you have heard the Buddhist pearl of wisdom "emptiness is form, form is emptiness"? Thought is form is it not?

thought of being in accord with fact or reality, or realization of being in accord, is superfluous to being in accord with fact or reality.

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

[Cahoot]

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

I think that key to understanding Webster’s definition of truth is understanding whether or not a property requires thought. For instance, does the existence of gravity require thought, and do the effects of gravity require thought.

[Cahoot]

Ah! true Cahoot, but the loss of the rubbish we drag around with us is huge. I guess it is like a guy who has pulled a rickshaw all their life - they are relieved but miss it.. A bit like me in retirement!

The standing up is the critical path. Action rules thought (to keep Russell interested?)

Necessity precedes action, so what precedes necessity?

Two possibilities. Yes I must do this, and no I must not do that. These two possibilities precede necessity.

With finite time, placement of the majority of attention on the first possibility, and placement of minimal attention on the second possibility, is the wise action. Wisdom is found in knowing just how important or unimportant it is to know why that is the wise action. The importance can be found through experiencing situations. Finding the importance through rational mind experiments adds another layer of limitation, though man does have the capacity to transcend that limitation, as Einstein did with his mind experiments.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell - If you don't cause the infinite who/what does? It is also infinite because at your base you are as well.

ardy, there is no base, there is no who, there is no you, instead, "you" is a concept of relating, of identification. You once said you hadn't yet had the insight of no-self (emptiness) which explains your view of a who at the center or base of "an infinite." Thoughts of an existing self causing things is wrong view and in order to see things as they really are - as things - it must be realized to be such.

[Pam Seeback]

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

I think that key to understanding Webster’s definition of truth is understanding whether or not a property requires thought. For instance, does the existence of gravity require thought, and do the effects of gravity require thought.

If Webster is equating truth with accordance (agreement) then thought must be present. How does one agree if thought is not present?

The law of gravity does not require thought, however, consciousness of the law of gravity does.

[Russell Parr]

The Infinite isn't caused or it wouldn't be infinite. "I" am but a temporal and finite part of the Infinite, and my existence extends only as far as I appear to exist. Otherwise, at bottom, there is nothing but the Infinite.

The heaven and hell ideas are an example of what the ego desires permanence to be, something that unequivocally involves itself.

Russell - If you don't cause the infinite who/what does? It is also infinite because at your base you are as well.

Nothing. The Infinite contains all of causation, any instance of causation is necessarily a part of the Infinite. I am infinite only in the sense that everything about me is causally connected to all things in reality.

[Russell Parr]

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

I think that key to understanding Webster’s definition of truth is understanding whether or not a property requires thought. For instance, does the existence of gravity require thought, and do the effects of gravity require thought.

If Webster is equating truth with accordance (agreement) then thought must be present. How does one agree if thought is not present?

The law of gravity does not require thought, however, consciousness of the law of gravity does.

Yes, but even the law of gravity requires consciousness to exist. Without thought, there is no demarcation of reality being made; anything beyond thought is necessarily undefined. Only reality as a whole.. infinite, unbounded, undelineated reality, can be said to exist without consciousness.

[Pam Seeback]

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

I think that key to understanding Webster’s definition of truth is understanding whether or not a property requires thought. For instance, does the existence of gravity require thought, and do the effects of gravity require thought.

If Webster is equating truth with accordance (agreement) then thought must be present. How does one agree if thought is not present?

The law of gravity does not require thought, however, consciousness of the law of gravity does.

Yes, but even the law of gravity requires consciousness to exist. Without thought, there is no demarcation of reality being made; anything beyond thought is necessarily undefined. Only reality as a whole.. infinite, unbounded, undelineated reality, can be said to exist without consciousness.

Gravity doesn't exist, consciousness doesn't exist, form doesn't exist and most certainly "reality as a whole" doesn't exist. Wisdom of emptiness ends the delusion of the existence of things.

When all is said and done, form or distinction is the only reality that can be known. While reasoning the concept of formlessness is necessary in order to realize emptiness of self (Zen's Ten Ox Herding Pictures comes to mind), in truth, there is never a moment in our consciousness when a distinction (appearance of a boundary) isn't being made.

So yes, consciousness is required to distinguish (think of) gravity.

[ardy]

Russell - If you don't cause the infinite who/what does? It is also infinite because at your base you are as well.

ardy, there is no base, there is no who, there is no you, instead, "you" is a concept of relating, of identification. You once said you hadn't yet had the insight of no-self (emptiness) which explains your view of a who at the center or base of "an infinite." Thoughts of an existing self causing things is wrong view and in order to see things as they really are - as things - it must be realized to be such.

Not so, the no-self is the infinite and you make it 'become' for want of a better word. It is an indivisible part of you and it connects you to everything. There is no you in it but it is your existence that makes it 'become' for you.

I have experienced emptiness and what a wonderful thing it is, when I first experienced it in the mid 90's I was overwhelmed by it and felt insignificant. As I got used to it I realised that it was I who created it within me, not that it was something outside of me (duality) that was creating me. Funny that I still am overawed by it although I am creating it.

I was so pleased when I read 'The Dazzling Dark' by John Wren-Lewis as that described at a deeper level what I had experienced.

[Pam Seeback]

ardy, I too read "The Dazzling Dark", good stuff, what Wren-Lewis has to say about the concept of self:

"My second warning is to mind your language, for the words we use are often hooks that catch us into time entrapment. For example, when we use the term “self” with a small “s” to describe individual personhood, and “Self” with a capital “S” for the fullness of God consciousness, the notion of the one gradually expanding into the other becomes almost inescapable, again concentrating attention along the time line. Mystical liberation, by contrast, is the sudden discovery that even the meanest self is already a focus of the Infinite Aliveness that is beyond any kind of selfhood."

And yes, every conscious being is nondual in nature. When all is said and done, this wisdom in a nutshell.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And yes, every conscious being is nondual in nature. When all is said and done, this wisdom in a nutshell.

Nature is non-dual, Pam. Totality is, the absolute. It's really a detraction to say "every conscious being" unless we'd define everything as some instance of a conscious being. Although that would defy the purpose of the term but at least understanding wouldn't be lobotomized necessarily. The nature of self is to try to do just that, as to keep its illusion alive. The nature of this forum is to warn against it.

As or "God consciousness" and "Infinite Aliveness", indeed such words represent misunderstanding and confusion. They cannot help but radiate ignorance: a self trying to create this sense of enlightened self, becoming or growing into "larger god selves" and so on. The ultimate wet dream of ego which sells. But this is even more true for "a focus of Infinite Aliveness" or anything lying "beyond selfhood". The danger is that the self is expanding the notion of itself. Focus and aliveness are examples of assigning extremely limited qualities to something that cannot posses those, least of all those. Even when it's just in language: their purposeful use betrays opposition to truth.

[Cahoot]

There is no fact or accordance (agreement) without thought.

I think that key to understanding Webster’s definition of truth is understanding whether or not a property requires thought. For instance, does the existence of gravity require thought, and do the effects of gravity require thought.

If Webster is equating truth with accordance (agreement) then thought must be present. How does one agree if thought is not present?

The law of gravity does not require thought, however, consciousness of the law of gravity does.

Yes, but even the law of gravity requires consciousness to exist. Without thought, there is no demarcation of reality being made; anything beyond thought is necessarily undefined. Only reality as a whole.. infinite, unbounded, undelineated reality, can be said to exist without consciousness.

Sure, the law of gravity is a concept that requires thought. Just like the concept of truth requires thought.

Gravity itself does not require thought. Fall out of a big balloon basket and voila, gravity ... regardless of what you think or perceive or label. Your thought does not create the gravity, though it does contribute to perceiving gravity, to discovering the Law of Gravity, the Theories of Gravity, and the Properties of Gravity.

Same goes for truth.

When you think that what you perceive is truth, you are not perceiving truth just because you are perceiving what you perceive, or thinking about about what you perceive. What you perceive must be in accord with reality in order to be truth. If it’s a rope and you see a snake, what you see is delusion, not truth.

Whether or not you perceive truth, or give thought to truth with theories and laws, is not required for truth to be, for truth always is, though thinking about truth can occur, and often does in humans.

*

The word "nutshell" gets funnier the more you look at it.

This “false self” is nothing but a thought, like the false snake. It is not in accord with reality. It only holds the power of delusion, which is nothing to sneeze at.