GENIUS FORUMS

Beingof1 wrote:An example is each moment of time is in a continuous momentem of a brand new reality of time. It therefore; transcends time in a constant state of what cannot be restrained or bounded.

Do you think that time is something that inherently exists? You seem to think the Totality exists within time.

Beingof1 wrote: The Totality;
It is all things at all places and all times. It is everything that can possibly be in all possible worlds, it is not everything that will possibly be. An infinite state is in flux.

The Totality includes time, so it is not in flux. Only something that exists in time can be in flux.

It sounds like beingof1 believes that the totality is super-consciousness that is struggling to manifest into matter, and is succeeding to greater and greater degrees as life on earth and other planets pushes forward through time.

Beingof1, is this what you mean?

Personally, I wish it were true.

But for the past few months I've been trying to explore what seems to me to be a more bleak perspective - Just to balance me out and give me greater tolerance.

Life seems to be a dissapointment by design, so I'm learning not to want anything too exciting.

Being filled up and possessed by a super consciousness that is beyond time, a superconsciousness that you become, a superconsciousness that cannot die. Literal immortality. When our phsyical body dies, we break away into a hyperspacial dimension and continue to live with greater responsibility and freedom.

Life everlasting.

Wouldnt that be nice.

AlyOshA:

I acknowledge my ego and utilize it as a tool. But I do not live through my ego or confuse it for my true substance.

Wisdom of seeing through the apparition that it is.

It is like seeing an image in the mind and believing the image or concept is reality.

The Supreme TAO is formless, yet It produces and nurtures all things.
The Supreme TAO has no desires, yet by Its power the Sun and Moon revolve in their orbits.
The Supreme TAO is nameless, yet It supports all things eternally.

-- Your quotes of Lao-Tzu

These sayings are all true in the context of describing what is beyond conceptual thought.

The Tao has no anthropormorphic form, desire, or name. It transcends all of these attempts at limitation and confinement.

When I said the Tao has "desire/will" - I did not mean in the human sense at all. That, I think, is where the 'issue' lies and creates misconception.


DHodges:

BO1: An example is each moment of time is in a continuous momentem of a brand new reality of time. It therefore; transcends time in a constant state of what cannot be restrained or bounded.

Dave: Do you think that time is something that inherently exists? You seem to think the Totality exists within time.

Time does not inherently exist, you cannot measure time. The best you can do is track time. When you track time it has consistant behaviour, it defies measurement - same is true with the Totality.

We must not make the example the thing in and of itself. An illustration does not take the place of reality.


ksolway:

The Totality includes time, so it is not in flux. Only something that exists in time can be in flux.

Then we need a working definition of 'time', yes?

How did you determine the Totality is not in flux? If we use simple observation and use logic to determine the function of the Totality, we can plainly see it is constant, never changing, infinite momentum.


Cory Patrick:

It sounds like beingof1 believes that the totality is super-consciousness that is struggling to manifest into matter, and is succeeding to greater and greater degrees as life on earth and other planets pushes forward through time.

Strike a single match and it becomes, not belief, but self evident.

Beingof1, is this what you mean?

Yes it is what I mean.

It is the folly of science, philosophers, preachers, and gurus to exclude their very own experience to create theories of what is the Totality. How can that be done?

But for the past few months I've been trying to explore what seems to me to be a more bleak perspective - Just to balance me out and give me greater tolerance.

It is good to explore all perspectives and what is and is not true.

Life seems to be a dissapointment by design, so I'm learning not to want anything too exciting.

It is indeed designed to cause expansion and effect the same.

That is a conclusion of logic and what is self-evident.

Being filled up and possessed by a super consciousness that is beyond time, a superconsciousness that you become, a superconsciousness that cannot die. Literal immortality. When our phsyical body dies, we break away into a hyperspacial dimension and continue to live with greater responsibility and freedom.

When did you first become?
When were you not?
What was your first moment of awareness?
what was your last?

alexei [edit: a bit longer than I boasted, but I chose clarity over brevity],

I do not identify the Tao with God as was popular early in the last century and before; the concept is far enough removed from the Christian God that I don't think anyone seriously considers them identical. That said, I find the Tao te Ching obtuse and misleading.

All things in The Universe and in our world are in essence unchanging.

For instance, as the essence of all things in the universe is Tao, this statement is true. However, in essence could accidentally be ignored, since many people use it colloquially, and incorrectly. In that case, the statement is false, because all things in the universe do indeed change constantly.

The Supreme TAO is formless, yet It produces and nurtures all things.
The Supreme TAO has no desires, yet by Its power the Sun and Moon revolve in their orbits.
The Supreme TAO is nameless, yet It supports all things eternally.

Simple patterns like this cannot of themselves produce contradictions. Here poetic license masks the pattern; I'll show a clearer translation. "Tao is formless, yet begets form" (as all things perceivable in any sense have form); "Tao is desireless, yet the workings of Nature, which seem so full of desire and purpose, are given life thereby."

Since "namelessness", as an archaic concept, has so many possible different significances, we work backwards to see what it means in this context. The named is either the eternal or the supported, because those are the two possible qualities that are given in contrast to namelessness. There is no indication that Tao is ephemeral, so it must be unsupported: "Tao is unsupported, yet it supports all things eternally."

Is it possible for a formless, desireless, unsupported Tao to produce a fully-supported ("real"), perceivable, apparently intentional Nature? The question defeats itself, for as soon as Tao manifests itself in any way, it is no longer formless and unsupported; consequently, if the production of reality apart from Tao is an event, then Tao cannot be formless. And there certainly must be a reality apart from Tao, as much as the metaphysics of the Tao te Ching denies this fact in other sections, because things clearly do have form. We can perceive things.

Hence, the apology:

Those who have the power to transcend their desires, looking within and contemplating mind, realizes that in mind, mind is not; looking without contemplating form, they realize that in form, form is not; looking at things still more remote and contemplating matter, they realize that in matter, matter is not.
When they have clearly thought about these three they perceive only a void, and when they contemplate the void, they realize that the void is also void and has become nothingness. The void having vanished into nothingness, they realize that the nothingness of nothing is also nothing, and when the nethermost nothingness is reached, there is truly to be found a deep and unchanging stillness.

Is it acceptable for the venerable Lao Tzu to establish, instead of proof, the type of person who would agree with him? Someone "without desires" would realize that he has no mind, no form, and no matter. The trickiest part of the philosophy is left to the reader, who is suddenly told to unfasten himself from all his desires, and indeed all logic, in order that he can see and agree with what is written.

This is typical mystical gobbly-gook; the problem is not an insurmountable difficulty caused by trying to identify the world, which clearly has some form (ie. there is some perception, even if this perception is only of illusions), with something formless, but rather the problem is the seeker having too many desires. "The reader not the theorist must change", says the theorist. "What is formed is not only created by what is formless, but when you think about it in just the right way, it is formless itself."

I hate to say this about a religion that I was beginning to sympathize with before I thought too hard about it, but that violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Cory: It sounds like beingof1 believes that the totality is super-consciousness that is struggling to manifest into matter, and is succeeding to greater and greater degrees as life on earth and other planets push forward through time.

Beingof1: Strike a single match and it becomes, not belief, but self evident.

Yes, but what have you to say in regards to the fact of the match inevitably burning out? What happens to the flame?

It is extinguished, and all that remains is ashes.

I would like to believe in the literal immortality/continuity of my self.

Beingof1, at death, do you think that we radically transform to such an extent that we have no memory or way of knowing who we were previous to our death? Much like a baby born into this world has no memory of a possible previous existence.

If thats the case, then it doesnt interest me. I dont see how people derive even egotistical gratification from such silly theories, let alone a sense of profound meaning.

However, if, after my death, I am radically transformed in terms of the ability of my mind and the vehicle that holds my mind AND I can remember my old life - but with a whole new (and profoundly comedic/tragic) perspective - - then that would be truly something to be joyous about. Life everlasting would be great if it invovled being a bodhisatva, looking down at this world and arranging synchronicities and guiding the humans who appear to have a desire to know. This life is perhaps training - -we become teachers and students in this world in order to be teachers and students in the next world. As students in this world, we are perhaps guided by teachers in a hyperspacial dimension. this might explain synchronicity.

But I don't care for the theory of reincarnation, or Nietzches eternal reccurence.

I like the Christian idea of a heaven after this world.

However, despite my fancies - - I find your 'match' analogy to be self-evident that we become enlightened in this life, only to be forever extinguished.

Much like a baby born into this world has no memory of a possible previous existence.

how do you know with certainty that a baby has no memory

who knows what process is in the mind of a very young being prior the capacity of verbal acclamation

between conception and language ability is unknown territory of mind

Cory: Much like a baby born into this world has no memory of a possible previous existence.

Sky: how do you know with certainty that a baby has no memory

who knows what process is in the mind of a very young being prior the capacity of verbal acclamation

between conception and language ability is unknown territory of mind

Yes, Noam Chomsky has done good work in regards to language development in toddlers.

I'm talking about 'personal memories'. Memories of personal expeiences in a past life dont seem to be present in 3 to 5 year olds.

I havent meant anyone who claims to have remembered being a 4 year old thinking about a time when they were 30, 50, 60.

I think it would be great if there are proven cases of reincarnation. But I don't think there are any convincing examples.

Mookestink said:

the concept is far enough removed from the Christian God that I don't think anyone seriously considers them identical.

You never said I had to believe in a Christian God – did you?
I am going to rush my response because I am in a hurry, hopefully this doesn’t degrade the legibility. Writing that hasn’t be edited tends to be longwinded, so I will apologize beforehand. My original quote was from the Classic of Purity by Ko Hsuan (not Lao Tzu) but if you don’t mind I will reply (the same way you did) using multiple sources from the Taoist cannon.

In that case, the statement is false, because all things in the universe do indeed change constantly.

This is a misunderstanding. Taoism more than any other religion acknowledges the constant changes of the natural world, hence the I Ching Book of Changes (and if you look beyond the divinity aspects of this book you will find that it does an incredible job of mapping out those various changes and teaching you about the observable world – not the mystical one).

Simple patterns like this cannot of themselves produce contradictions. Here poetic license masks the pattern.

They do produce contradictions, (what makes you say they can’t) but those contradictions can have tangible meanings, the pattern is created by the contradiction, not masked by it. And these contradictions are not intended to be poetic. If one is going to understand life you better understand that everything in life has contradictions within contradictions within contradictions. There is also another purpose for writing in this manner. This is what they call a whole-brained approach. Most western philosophy is entirely left-brained; logic and rationality rely solely on the use of the left-brain (which is why Atheists bore me to tears, there is just no goddamn creativity or originality – LOL just kidding). The Tao Te Ching relies on the right and the left-brain sometimes intermittently sometimes simultaneously. After pondering all 5000 words of that book (and if you haven’t studied Chinese then I suggest reading the translation by R. L. Wing – not the one by Stephan Mitchell) you can understand the exact meaning of its words, not just logically, but intuitively.

Is it possible for a formless, desireless, unsupported Tao to produce a fully-supported ("real"), perceivable, apparently intentional Nature?

It’s not only possible but if you use your rational logic of reduction you will find that it is the only possible conclusion. What created nature, well the creator created nature, but who created the creator (typical Atheist argument), nothingness created the creator. The only thing that can logically exist before something is nothing/the void/emptiness/an uncarved block of wood. This is seemingly nihilistic but not if you truly understand the nature of nothingness. Nothingness is charged with the seed of potential, like a drawn bow. A bellows is useful because of its empty space, a room is useful because of its empty space, a cup is useful because of the empty space, and similarly the supreme emptiness is charged with potentiality. That is often called the original Tao or the Supreme Tao. But the Tao is also used to describe all of its manifestations, all the energies and patterns that evolved afterwards and continue evolving as we speak. Life on this planet, in this solar system is an evolution of the momentum that started with the big bang. All of this is called the Tao. But you are trying to distinguish the Tao when you say:

The question defeats itself, for as soon as Tao manifests itself in any way, it is no longer formless and unsupported; consequently, if the production of reality apart from Tao is an event, then Tao cannot be formless. And there certainly must be a reality apart from Tao, as much as the metaphysics of the Tao Te Ching denies this fact in other sections, because things clearly do have form. We can perceive things.

Tangent: (Lee Smolin theorizes that our universe originated from black holes, and is designed solely around black hole production. He also postulates that life is just a minor byproduct of black holes, and that in terms of comparison and priority, life is rather insignificant. At face value it sounds like a good argument for Atheists, but actually the Taoists believe that the eternal and original supreme Tao is a supreme void/vacuum of potentiality, hmm… Sort of like a black hole. What do you think? Is God a black hole?)

Is it acceptable for the venerable Lao Tzu to establish, instead of proof, the type of person who would agree with him? Someone "without desires" would realize that he has no mind, no form, and no matter. The trickiest part of the philosophy is left to the reader, who is suddenly told to unfasten himself from all his desires, and indeed all logic, in order that he can see and agree with what is written.

Well you are correct in that Lao Tzu is not trying to give people a black and white definition of God, you are right that he is not looking for mindless sheep who have blind faith in his words. He is merely offering readers a means for personal discovery. In fact that is why Taoism is such an incredibly unsuccessful religion. There is no preaching, conversion, promotion, hierarchy, deities, rituals, a true Taoist wouldn’t even admit to being a Taoist. But you are wrong when you say that the path is to be without desires, without mind, without form, without matter (although these concepts come in to play and the close of ones lifetime). The highest form of spiritual consciousness comes from the mind and is called shin. The primary focus of a Taoist is to observe nature and intuitively act upon your circumstance case by case, as if fate were a river, you do not simply let the current take you wherever it wants, but you certainly can’t resist the current and swim upstream, you have to guild the motion that is already in place, the same way a Matador guilds the bull, and act at just the right moment. A Taoist is not supposed to rid himself of desires until he is ready to leave the physical world, until he is ready to die, (or retire into enlightenment). A young man is in the spring and summer of his lifetime and in the summer he is supposed to be filled with desires, purpose, and lots of action. The purpose of a young Taoist is to constantly better herself striving to achieve mental and physical excellence (to essentially become a Scholar Warrior). Nearly all of the Taoist practices are for health and longevity in the here and now (I’m barely scratching the surface here, but hopefully you catch my drift).

Mookestink I’m afraid that even without my hastily hacked out rebuttal I still cannot see how you disproved the existence of God by the Taoist definition. You have done a far better job of confusing meaning by jumbling words than Lao Tzu ever could. But maybe if you clarify for me, I will better understand what you don't understand. Ha Ha Ha.

And now for an even greater tangent, speaking of The Now, Eckhart Tolle said (and I’m going to bastardize this) that the Native Americans did not describe the invading white men by the color of their skin (per the popular conception) but instead described white men by their eternally unhappy, ever searching, unquenchable faces and characteristics. He said something to the effect that the Native Americans were incredibly comfortable with nature and their surroundings and at peace with themselves. On top of being a gross generalization that many lofty and romantic liberals throw around (or as mookestink calls mystical gobbly-gook), each tribe of Native American was unique from the other and many were far from being at peace with themselves and nature. But if you accept these words to be true there is an even greater criticism that arises.
Being of One Said:

I would ask you, have the Eastern Philosophies expunged war in the Asian nations? Hardly, and it would be just as unfair to say "Buddhism and Lao-Tzu are the cause of thousands of years of conflict".

Do you think that war and violence will ever go away? How is war and violence any different than Cancer and Tsunamis? Dostoevsky claims that humans are artistically cruel, but I can find just as much artistic cruelty in giving a child cancer than I can in having a child raped and murdered. These are just as much a part of the world and existence as everything else. Why deny what exists?
Lets pretend that the Native Americans were at peace with themselves and their world; they had no need for wars, violence, and destruction. Lets assume that the Tibetan Buddhists are the same way. Even if this is true, look at the outcomes of both of these cases. Who has proved to be more successful, the peaceful Native Americans, or the miserable white men that nearly wiped them out of existence? Gandhi was successful only under those exact circumstances; do you think Gandhi would have been successful as a Jew in resistance to the Nazis? Just when you find inner peace there is a miserable bastard lurking around the corner just itching to wipe you out of existence. Just when you start to appreciate life – brain cancer.

corey patrick
I'm talking about 'personal memories'. Memories of personal expeiences in a past life dont seem to be present in 3 to 5 year olds.

i was talking about past life or prebirth experience prior to the verbal process

babys not toddlers that would be too late imo

what goes on in their minds their dreams in the amorphous stage before identification sets in

sky: i was talking about past life or prebirth experience prior to the verbal process

babys not toddlers that would be too late imo

what goes on in their minds their dreams in the amorphous stage before identification sets in?

What goes on in the minds of babies before they learn to identify and form an ego?

I would say that the proccess happening in the brain isnt that much different than the instinctual responses that you see in baby animals. Just instincitve gropping for the teat and warmth.

What do you think goes on?

alexei,

You never said I had to believe in a Christian God – did you?

I'm not convinced that Tao refers to a God-figure in any way; in fact, it is self-defeating to think of it in that context. I was hoping to disprove the existence of a deity, not of existence itself.

i said: In that case, the statement is false, because all things in the universe do indeed change constantly.

alexei: This is a misunderstanding.

Indeed; I was showing an example of how easy it is to misread Taoist writings. Taking "essential" colloquially, rather than exactly, makes the sentence false. I thought I was clear on this: I was showing a misunderstanding, not making one.

If one is going to understand life you better understand that everything in life has contradictions within contradictions within contradictions.

Truth is non-contradictory. A poor world-view is one which is enmeshed in contradictions. That should be obvious; the alternative to a solid grasp of truth is that sad state where everything is both true and false.

[The nothingness] is often called the original Tao or the Supreme Tao. But the Tao is also used to describe all of its manifestations, all the energies and patterns that evolved afterwards and continue evolving as we speak.

In that case, Tao is identical with the Totality. It is not a God-figure at all.

Hardly surprising though, because Taoism, like Buddhism and Confuscianism, is an atheist religion. You can check up on that.

Mookestink I’m afraid that even without my hastily hacked out rebuttal I still cannot see how you disproved the existence of God by the Taoist definition.

Good that you can't see it, because I didn't. I just showed weaknesses in the sample of writing you offered me.

You have done a far better job of confusing meaning by jumbling words than Lao Tzu ever could. But maybe if you clarify for me, I will better understand what you don't understand.

Well, I think I did an excellent job. It's pretty clear what you didn't understand from what I said.

1) You don't see how the structure Ko Hsuan uses ("Tao is not-x, yet is the cause of x") does not create a contradiction. I don't see why you're convinced otherwise, because that actually weakens your case.

2) You don't understand the simple fact that when a formless thing manifests itself in any way, it is no longer formless. If Tao is to be the Totality, which it evidently is meant to be, it cannot simultaneously be formless and have form. Tao, rather than being formless, should be all forms.

3) I was mocking Lao Tzu (who I now understand did not write this piece) for suggesting to his potential disciples that the problem is that they still "have desires", not that his conception of Tao might be flawed. I think the flaw is so glaring that it was unconscienable (as opposed to simply careless) of him to include this passage.

[edit: grammar]

Sky,

I asked you; What goes on in the minds of babies before they learn to identify and form an ego?

You already gave me an answer to that question when you said;

"A past life or prebirth experience"

Sky, in order for there to be an experience, there must an experiencer.

Who is this person inside this baby experiencing the past life or pre-birth experience?

And how do you personally know of this experience?

Cory Patrick wrote:

I think it would be great if there are proven cases of reincarnation. But I don't think there are any convincing examples.

I think it would be great if there were proven examples as well. I also wish someone could prove the existence or non-existence of God. I wish I had proof that I wasn’t dreaming right now, that this is true reality. At times I agree with Shakespeare, the only reason we live is because we are scared that death is worse than life. If I really knew for a fact that the afterlife was divine bliss then I might not hesitate to drink a gallon of scotch tonight and see if I can fly. That’s why it’s so easy for the martyrs. Instead of proof most are just perpetually torn back and forth between belief and disbelief. So I will provide you with an anecdote instead. My 4-year-old nephew and I were driving in my car together and out of the blue he said, “Monkey, (that is what he’s called me since birth and nobody knows why) before I was born, and before you were born, did we know each other?” My reply, “That’s a good question, I don’t know for sure.” Then he said, “Monkey, when I die and you die, will we know each other again?” It is hard for me to explain how profound this is because you don’t know the circumstances, but I will say that I have an incredibly small and limited family, and if you knew what the boys parents are like (not only do they not claim religious affiliation but they would immediately fall asleep if someone brought up the subject). When I talk to my nephew it is the exact same as when I talk to my best-friend who is my own age. I have an incredibly difficult time believing that he has only been on this planet for four years, with only his parents and the occasional cartoon to shape his personality and wisdom. But this is not proof. That would be way too simple, and life is rarely simple.

Mookestink

I was showing a misunderstanding, not making one.

I see that, in fact I saw that in the first place, I’m sorry if I used that against you.

Truth is non-contradictory. A poor world-view is one which is enmeshed in contradictions. That should be obvious; the alternative to a solid grasp of truth is that sad state where everything is both true and false.

Can you name me a formula that can encapsulate life? I am being totally serious; do you think that someone has created a worldview without contradictions? If so then I will offer the same bold challenge that you offered me, “put a definition on the table and watch it get torn apart.” How can you not see contradictions in day to day life?

Hardly surprising though, because Taoism, like Buddhism and Confuscianism, is an atheist religion. You can check up on that.

I’m afraid that I’ve spent nearly half of my life checking up on that. Not a day goes by when I don’t check up on that. Do you think that just because the Taoist and Buddhist God doesn’t have a human personality with omniscient and omnipotent impossibilities that it is somehow an Atheist God (I used the contradiction Atheistic God for a reason)? Just out of curiosity have you ever read Richard Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God? Richard Carrier used to be a Taoist, before turning Atheist. Unfortunately he did not fully understand the religion (not that he isn’t incredibly intelligent and insightful, but everyone and every belief has its weaknesses, Richards is no exception).

Well, I think I did an excellent job

I think you did too. But this response was more insightful for me.

You don't see how the structure Ko Hsuan uses ("Tao is not-x, yet is the cause of x") does not create a contradiction. I don't see why you're convinced otherwise, because that actually weakens your case.

I already stated how I feel about contradictions. But you are correct; I still do not see it. Your father is not you, yet is the cause of you – is that a contradiction?

2) You don't understand the simple fact that when a formless thing manifests itself in any way, it is no longer formless.

That is why the supreme Tao is formless while the Tao has many often contradictory forms. Both matter and antimatter exist simultaneously in the same universe, when they come in contact… If something has form the only logical conclusion is that something formless also exists.

Tao, rather than being formless, should be all forms.

According to Ko Hsuan the supreme Tao is formless while the Tao is the manifestation of all forms.

I was mocking Lao Tzu (who I now understand did not write this piece) for suggesting to his potential disciples that the problem is that they still "have desires", not that his conception of Tao might be flawed.

You are confusing Lao Tzu and Buddha. Although their respective religions are very similar and often borrow from each other, Lao Tzu does not necessarily teach the practice of “having no desires”, especially when you are young (and for a religion whose primary focus is health, Taoists tend to stay young for a very long time).

I think the flaw is so glaring that it was unconscienable (as opposed to simply careless) of him to include this passage.

This is where I am still confused. Please clarify this glaring flaw.

Cory Patrick:

Yes, but what have you to say in regards to the fact of the match inevitably burning out? What happens to the flame?

It is extinguished, and all that remains is ashes.

What was the match before it was a match? What is it after it is burned?

If the match can be burned, what is its fundamental property in existence? Is it wood, fire, or smoke?

Is the match mass or energy?

Beingof1, at death, do you think that we radically transform to such an extent that we have no memory or way of knowing who we were previous to our death? Much like a baby born into this world has no memory of a possible previous existence.

Can the match become something other than what it already was or is?

Not in appearance but in essence.

However, despite my fancies - - I find your 'match' analogy to be self-evident that we become enlightened in this life, only to be forever extinguished.

Nothing can ever be extinguished as it has no place to begin.

When did you first become?
When were you not?
What was your first moment of awareness?
what was your last?

I am not trying to 'convert' you to anything that is not self evident.

Sky,

I asked you; What goes on in the minds of babies before they learn to identify and form an ego?

You already gave me an answer to that question when you said;

"A past life or prebirth experience"

Sky, in order for there to be an experience, there must an experiencer.

Who is this person inside this baby experiencing the past life or pre-birth experience?

And how do you personally know of this experience?

corey patrick
i never said this you have misconstrued my words

i am merely wondering and speculating

you must admit i think that if there were some way to know this it might be very revealing

now a human baby is a unique type as i believe it is agreed that only human embodiment has the potential for enlightenment

so what goes on in the mind of a potential 'genius' may not be necessarily equated with instinctual animals

and just as in adult life we have clearest recall for the most part our most recent experiences then it is not impossible that a baby has some memory of what was recent to them which may include memories of prior incarnations

once ego and social conditioning are imposed those memories would be over written

further speculation might be that a baby's mind is empty which would mean we are all born buddhas

it seems too me that there is no way of ever knowing as transmission of any knowledge requires verbal or other skills which a baby does not have

to put it in another way

at what point is there an experiencer

weininger kevin and david were all babies at one point

so when did they begin their path to genius or were they always geniuses

if it is always is it

a. always including past lives

b. always from conception

c. always from birth

was it only when recognized and perceived by themselves

was it only until it was perceivable and recognized by others

further speculation

at what point did christ know he was christ

we know buddha was not aware till full adulthood that he was buddha

all i am really saying is that it being the case that that human babies have the potential for enlightenment and that since more than a few espousers of enlightenment do depend on karma which implies past lives that the mind of a human baby might hold the key to a lot that is directly relevant to the existence of prior incarnations

enlightenment

and the existence of god

would a cat scan of any of the acknowledged geniuses or enlightened beings show an indicator

if so would this indicator show up in their infancy

in the womb

when does the experiencer come into being

What is God spelled backwards? Dog. I believe that God has the characteristics of a dog.

He is as stubburn as a dog, just look at his messengers(christians).

God never speaks to you in your terms, except only in parables kinda like a dog speaks to you in signals.

God is mans best friend; the dog is man's best friend.

Give a dog a treat and he will be happy, give your local church some offering and they will be happy.

So...in one sentence, " God is your pet sparky"

alexei,

Can you name me a formula that can encapsulate life?

The principle of non-contradiction. There is nothing in life, death, the world, the universe, or indeed everything, that is not encapsulated within this simple law. Even critics of Aristotelian logic cannot dispute this rule. But I'm being very general; one would have to be to cover everything though, right?

So, yeah. The formula is A=A, and if you stick around, you'll see it a lot.

How can you not see contradictions in day to day life?

I see contradictions frequently: when I listen to people talk, or read books, or make mistakes in my own thinking. But that's what they are: mistakes. (Yes, I do view paradoxes as a sign that someone has made a mistake).

do you think that someone has created a worldview without contradictions?

No. I cannot imagine anyone who thinks that mechanically. However, I do think that there are people whose worldviews are more accurate and consistent than others. It is possible to approach truth. One sure-fire way of telling that someone has a long way to go is that they contradict themselves a lot. Since it is possible to create internally consistent worldviews that have little to no relationship to reality (ie. fantasies), I have no one-sentence recommendation on how to identify a perfect worldview. Many of the qualities that are needed by a discerning mind, such as singlemindedness, are also present in excess in neuroses. A philosopher's penetration is, in the madman, an intricate delusion.

I believe that QRS (Quinn, Rowden, Solway) are high-quality thinkers, in the same league as the sages they recommend.

Do you think that just because the Taoist and Buddhist God doesn’t have a human personality with omniscient and omnipotent impossibilities that it is somehow an Atheist God?

I think with all the baggage that comes with the word "God", that word is misleading. I have intentionally called myself a pantheist to avoid the stigma of atheism (the most meaningful difference being that the pantheist calls the entire universe God, which isn't a meaningful difference at all). Are we going to argue over semantics here? The important question is whether or not Taoism accurately describes reality (Reality being another possible word for God?).

From the material you presented, my concern is whether or not the essential [something] of existence is formless or not.

Just out of curiosity have you ever read Richard Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God?

No, I have not.

According to Ko Hsuan the supreme Tao is formless while the Tao is the manifestation of all forms.

Two separate Taos? This is starting to sound vaguely Kantian.

This is where I am still confused. Please clarify this glaring flaw.

Is Tao formless or does it have form? That is the question that is not adequately answered, and is therefore a flaw. There is nothing wrong with a student who does not immediately see this, and he does not need to do anything special with his mind to see things in a special way. He should be able to figure it out logically.

Sky: You must admit i think that if there were some way to know this it might be very revealing

If reincarnation was some how proven to be factual, how would it change your life? In what way would it effect your decisions?

Personally, I don’t think it would do much for me. If I’m not going to remember myself in my next life – then it makes no difference to me whether or not there is reincarnation or not.

I find is strange how people manage to derive egotistical gratification off reincarnation theory.

Sky: further speculation might be that a baby's mind is empty which would mean we are all born buddhas

Your idea of a Buddha is pretty far off then. A Buddha is capable of the highest level of rationality, whereas a baby is not.

Sky: At what point is there an experiencer?

Actually, that is an incorrect question.

The right question would be:

At one point does the illusion of there being an experiencer begin?
In other words, at one point does the illusion of a self begin?

Sky: So when did they begin their path to genius or were they always geniuses?

They were definitely not always geniuses.

When did their path begin? I would say that we are all on the path to genius. Some of us take the path, others get distracted.

So the answer is, each person is always on the path to genius.

The correct question is: at one point did I get distracted?

at what point did christ know he was christ

When did I know what 1 + 1 equals?

At the age when my brain was mature enough to handle it.

Sky: All i am really saying is that it being the case that that human babies have the potential for enlightenment

No they don’t. Fully grown adults have the potential for enlightenment. Whereas babies, children, and feminines do not.

and that since more than a few espousers of enlightenment do depend on karma which implies past lives

No, Karma simply points to the basic law of cause and effect. Karma only implies past lives if you want it do. Above and beyond wanting to believe in reincarnation – there is no reason to say that karma implies past lives.

Every day of your life is 1 life. When you sleep at the end of the day; that is your death. When you awake you are reborn.

Learn what it means to make the most of your day otherwise you will be reborn in an inferior realm.

Sky: The mind of a human baby might hold the key to a lot that is directly relevant to the existence of prior incarnations

How would knowing about the existence of prior incarnations be relevant to the life that you are living now?

corey patrick

Sky: You must admit i think that if there were some way to know this it might be very revealing

*sigh* i am not selling reincarnation i am not attached to reincarnation either way

what i am saying is that knowing exactly what is going on in the mind of a baby (which has the potential to become a fully grown adult [was that really necessary to say or is it not implied that a baby will quite likely become a fully gown adult])would be quite possibly revelatory to

prior incarnations

enlightenment

the existence of god

any or all of the above or none

Your idea of a Buddha is pretty far off then. A Buddha is capable of the highest level of rationality, whereas a baby is not.

from one speculative sentence you have absolute knowledge of my idea of buddha

I find is strange how people manage to derive egotistical gratification off reincarnation theory.

i assume you mean me

i have no attachment either way - how many times do i have to say this is pure speculation

does speculation = egotistical gratification and does speculation of any possible subject imply egotistical gratification or just reincarnation

i thought reason/reasoning was good

(speculate - to meditate or ponder

to think

to be curious [all merriam webster])

was good even necessary for truth honesty logic wisdom and perfection

They were definitely not always geniuses.

definitely - you are absolutely certain of this you are absolutely certain that you have the ability to be absolutely certain

so therefore christ was not christ till he was mature enough to realize it so what was he before

i would think that if he was christ he was always christ just like buddha was always buddha only he was not yet awake to that reality

each person is always on the path to genius.

but you just said that kevin david and otto were definitely not always geniuses

No, Karma simply points to the basic law of cause and effect. Karma only implies past lives if you want it do

Learn what it means to make the most of your day otherwise you will be reborn in an inferior realm.

these two statements seem to say that you want karma to do or rather be

so maybe it is you that is egotistically attached to reincarnation and you are projecting it on to me

or are you treating me as a child (feminine) scaring me into proper (in your way of thinking)or correct view (masculine) with the bogey man of regressive karma

How would knowing about the existence of prior incarnations be relevant to the life that you are living now?

i don't know usually i have to have the knowledge before i can perceive its relevance

for example should i have the knowledge of a genius i do not know how i would relate to those i perceive as non genius

i might treat them patronizingly and point out every possible defect

or i might look to see if there is any shred of potential validity in what they had to say and encourage that

or both

or neither

Mookestink I respect you, so if I ever sound condescending please note that it is only for effect or out of playfulness. I am not exactly sure how much you know about Taoism so I have mainly provided very elementary concepts and definitions.

Two separate Taos? This is starting to sound vaguely Kantian.

A very basic definition of the word Tao is “the way”. So yes there are not only two “ways” but there are many ways. Everything in our observable existence is torn between varying degrees of duality (probably a better word choice then contradiction). I’m hoping you understand the basic concepts of Ying and Yang so I don’t have to get into it, but think about black and white, masculine and feminine, protons and electrons, think matter and antimatter, David Horowitz and Noam Chomsky, (or in advanced meditations think) about forms and formlessness, the named and the nameless, substance and nothingness. Everything in observable life is a child of duality and is torn between two opposites, the more extreme you go in one direction the closer you become to your opposite and eventually, without balance, you become your opposite. This is what I mean by a contradiction. And if you are firmly rooted on one side of the spectrum, one extreme (Reason), you are in fact a mirror image of your opposite (Faith) and if you continue on your extreme you will eventually become your opposite (yes you will become a radical right wing Christian with blind faith galore), just as winter eventually becomes summer.

Many of the qualities that are needed by a discerning mind, such as singlemindedness, are also present in excess in neuroses. A philosopher's penetration is, in the madman, an intricate delusion.

I have a feeling that you and I are not too dissimilar in our beliefs, but please allow me a quick rant (because ranting is fun) against the worldview of a rationalist (not necessarily you, and not necessarily my opinion).

You are going to kill me for this one but as it still stands (despite the many recent attempts to prove it) physicists cannot find any proven evidence to explain how a bumblebee can fly. Scientists can’t even figure out why humans need to sleep at night. When you rely solely on logic, demonstrations, and the proof that only our current state of science can prove you are basically saying that you have half a brain -- that is the left half. You are confining yourself to an existence which is erroneously below your potential, and you are restricting your possibilities exponentially. To accept only scientifically proven truths is an utter stagnation of growth, and the amount of truth that you accept is appallingly limited because science is appallingly far from reaching its zenith. What would happen if you tried to tell a rationalist of 1000 years ago that it was possible to obtain an unlimited amount of information or communicate with millions of people from all over the world in a matter of seconds (in other words you described the internet) what would be his reaction? As you know scientists prove things and revise their proofs and sometimes find out that they were completely wrong. So why is it impossible for science to someday prove the existence of telepathy or even God?
So I will admit to you that I am an artist, I like new things, creative possibilities, and creative insights, I rely on my left brain as well but I would never live my life through it – Jesus God I would rather die.

From the material you presented, my concern is whether or not the essential [something] of existence is formless or not.

Yes it is. And it is not a contradiction to say so. It is a very rational and logical conclusion. Since matter exists, so does antimatter (this is proven). Duality is an observable rule of nature. The only logical conclusion to the statement that things have form is that something formless also exists. The original Tao (or God so to speak) existed before forms and simultaneously with forms, but the original Tao is formless/nothingness/emptiness/the void. I will repeat, the only thing that can exist before creation is nothingness, because nothing can exist before nothingness, the only thing that can exist before forms is formlessness, this is speaking logically. If you want A=A logic then think of matter as A and antimatter as B, and you are right that when they come in contact an immense amount of conflict emerges. But just because A=A that does not mean that B does not also exist. If your left brain is craving scientific truths read the Tao of physics, DNA and the I Ching, The I Ching and the genetic code, or maybe (the less scientifically sound) Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything.

Cory: Each person is always on the path to genius.

Sky: but you just said that kevin david and otto were definitely not always geniuses

There is a difference between being on a path, and arriving at a destination.

Society is the sum total of 'distracted' individuals.

If one of these members of society suddenly becomes interested in being a genius, it is helpful for them to know that the path begins when they cease being distracted by charms and take a look at where they are standing. They are already on the path to genius.

That's not to say they will survive the journey!

Now, perhaps you meant: were kevin, david and otto 'destinied or pre-determined' to be geniuses?

I would say yes.

Everything is determined and we don't have control over who we are.

The question boils down to one of "what is reality?"

What is real?

What is existence?

Then: What is X?

X = ?

If things can only be defined with reference to other things, then we ask "what is a thing?" A thing is itself.

X is X

X = X

The fundamental nature of existence is the most fundamental substrate that does not break down, to be referenced to a more basic other "thing", so it is simply "X"

X = X

Percieved diversity procedes from a non-diverse entity.

X ===> not-X

The enigmatic mathematical description of the transformation of basic X to not-X is the riddle.

Consciousness cannot arise from materialistic interactions but rather the material manifestations are the perceptions OF consciousness.

Perception operates in accordance with the laws of causality, where the results of intentionality become causality. In other words, causality cannot be a statistical fluke that keeps maintaining order and regularity in defiance of the concept of randomness, because the very idea of randomness entails divergence with no real "purpose".

That is to say, the succession of causal events exist as an ordered framework consisting of past/ancestral events, which appear to constrain all future/descendant events.

Time is also necessarily defined as an ordered relation, entailing convergence. Consciousness entails intentionality and intentionality entails causality.

The material universe is necessarily a consequence of consciousness.

What constitutes the ordered hierarchy we observe around us?

Unquantified potential exists as an unlimited domain, which becomes part of a quantified hierarchy of ordered relations bound by previous, more inclusive, i.e. "outer shells" of constraint.

The unquantified potential evolves in accordance with the outer constraints - iterations, in a sequence of stepwise optimizations, as ultimately required by the highest level of a necessary teleological manifestation.

With a completely random origin, everything happens at once and there is no ordered relation. Consequently, if existence can only be defined by itself then the definition must remain consistent with itself even as it is self referential. All future iterations in the sequence of events are bound by the more inclusive outer shells of constraint.

Butthead I do not have qualms with what you laid out, in fact I mostly agree with it, but I would like to toy with a few notions.

X = ?

If things can only be defined with reference to other things, then we ask "what is a thing?" A thing is itself.

X is X

X = X

You are right, and since we are using old concepts I will do the same, “beauty is only beautiful, because of ugliness”.

Or X=X because of Y.

Just as you said, things can only be defined with reference to other things.

The fundamental nature of existence is the most fundamental substrate that does not break down, to be referenced to a more basic other "thing", so it is simply "X"

X = X

Is non-existence impossible? (If it is impossible then I will assume that you believe in some form of an afterlife.) Existence is a concept that can only be defined by its opposite non-existence. If you are saying that non-existence is impossible then you are saying that existence is somehow both existence and non-existence simultaneously and therefore X=Y, but I seriously doubt that you agree with that.

Percieved diversity procedes from a non-diverse entity.

X ===> not-X

I can’t argue with that.

That is to say, the succession of causal events exist as an ordered framework consisting of past/ancestral events, which appear to constrain all future/descendant events.

Time is also necessarily defined as an ordered relation, entailing convergence. Consciousness entails intentionality and intentionality entails causality.

A very “Western” way of thinking.
What do you think about Carl Jung’s adaptation of Eastern principles?

Synchronicity is a word coined by the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung to describe the "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung spoke of synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality). Plainly put, it is the experience of having two (or more) things happen coincidentally in a manner that is meaningful to the person or persons experiencing them, where that meaning suggests an underlying pattern. It differs from coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic that is being expressed through meaningful relationships or events. It was a principle that Jung felt encompassed his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlay the whole of human experience and history — social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic1.

The material universe is necessarily a consequence of consciousness.

Yes but only humans have consciousness, so we are very limited by our perceptions. Is it possible to transcend human consciousness? Or at least evolve in human consciousness to comprehend that which previous humans could not comprehend. Consciousness has most definitely evolved since the caveman. People who don’t put limitations on the possibilities attempt to evolve (or transcend) their consciousness on a daily basis. Prior to 1982, the 3000-year-old practice of visualization techniques (or healing yourself with your mind as practiced by Taoists and Shamans) was regarded by rationalists and scientists as “mystical gobly goop”. But with the recent advent of psycho-neuro-immunology it now has sound scientific evidence for proof. In this instance science is 3000 years behind the times. And I am glad that those crazy mystics were able to heal cancer with equal efficiency to chemotherapy before the scientists told them it was OK.

With a completely random origin, everything happens at once and there is no ordered relation. Consequently, if existence can only be defined by itself then the definition must remain consistent with itself even as it is self referential. All future iterations in the sequence of events are bound by the more inclusive outer shells of constraint.

I agree with you almost completely and I think you did an incredible job of being clear, concise, and poignant. But I do not feel that existence is a substrate that cannot be broken down. I feel that non-existence is not only possible but it is the only logical conclusion to idea of existence. This formula is brilliant but almost too simple. There is always a formula that has not been solved yet. You read that Grigory Perelman recently refused the Fields Medal for solving the conundrum of turning a donut into a sphere without tearing it (elementarily speaking) and thus giving new insight into the nature of the universe. The formula for existence (or reality) is a conundrum that we have barely scratched the surface of. And if we limit ourselves to using a small section of our left brain, then we are going to have to wait for a really long time.