GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead,

In any given formal system of logic, there have to exist true statements that cannot be proven from within the system. That implies, to me, that a meta-system exists, and then we start to see steps or levels.

You're making it sound more complicated than it is. Before it is possible to explore a logical system, you simply need definitions. You can't prove that A=A from within a logical system. Nor can you prove that 1 really exists "out there". You have to assume things like tautologies and numbers. That's all it means.

Scott,

CG: An adept would be a fully realized person, and a Buddha would be fully perfected. The difference would be that a Buddha would be in a permanent state of realization, and the adept would still experience moments of non-perfection.

SS: Now how did you find this out? Reading books and talking to people that have read books, or direct experience?

CG: Direct experience, and contact with elevated persons.

SS: Is it possible that your experience was impacted by what you have read in books?

If you asking if books influence my experience, sure, but chiefly books corroborate my direct experience and contact. The written word is secondary, though important.

CG: Of course they can. I can think of something false, and then something true in immediate succession. They aren't mutually exclusive.

SS: What's an example of something true?

I exist.

CG: False. Realization is a step by step process. It happens in stages.

SS: I disagree. If you know the truth, then delusion can't get a foothold in your mind.

You have it backwards. Delusion already has more than a foothold in your mind, and you are attempting to replace it with truth. This process can only happen a step at a time.

CG: I understand what you are saying, but you are speaking in abstract terms. In fact, the bio-units we call our bodies, though illusional in one sense, do reside in a collective reality we call Earth. And here on Earth, duality exists. So on one level, at least, we have to deal with it.

SS: There aren't levels to reality. There is one level of truth, and many levels of delusion. Because we're deluded, we have to deal with...

Duality and oneness are two levels of reality. We have to work our way through duality, and then from duality to oneness.

It's a matter of graduating from one to the other, and this is done grade by grade, to use a school analogy.

but if we were enlightened, the way I define it, then we wouldn't have to deal with it because it doesn't truly exist.

I see what you are saying. Nevertheless, the path to oneness requires that we “deal with it” (duality).We cannot simply wish ourselves (“if we”) to enlightenment, hoping to safely disregard duality along the way. One cannot simply jump over duality to Enlightenment.

Besides, even a sage must meet his physical needs as long has he has a body. Day, night, yin, yang, duality can’t be ignored on the Earth plane. It doesn't just disappear.

CG: High moral standard is objective. Maybe you do not recognize this. Interpretations may vary, in correct or incorrect ways, but the code is there.

SS: What do you mean?

High moral code is, essentially, the way of the warrior (the spiritual warrior), but it can be adopted (in part) by individuals not on the path (i.e. the family man), and applied to society, as well, (i.e. by a wise king). It can be found as such places as the I Ching (Book of Changes), and the words of Jesus, Lao-tzu, Kierkegaard, and others.

Carl,

If you asking if books influence my experience, sure, but chiefly books corroborate my direct experience and contact. The written word is secondary, though important.

I ask such things because outside of books, things like this that you're talking about don't exist. Spiritual writings may try to talk about experiences, and truth, but it's bad when you use them as a map for spiritual experiences and truth in my opinion. They are people's interpretations of things. They can be very misleading.

It's important to see that a Buddha doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs.

I exist.

Is that really a true statement? What is "I"? Are you without a doubt sure that the "I" you're talking about exists?

You have it backwards. Delusion already has more than a foothold in your mind, and you are attempting to replace it with truth. This process can only happen a step at a time.

I think you have it backwards. I'm not attempting anything, because I know that such a thing would be delusional...to attempt to replace delusion with truth. All I KNOW is that delusion is gone when the truth is known. Pretty simple! There is no process to living in reality, in the absolute truth. Any process takes place in the minds of deluded people.

I guess you could say the process is one of becoming ripe...but when enlightenment comes you fall off the branch. There aren't any fruits that are half on the branch and half falling off.

Duality and oneness are two levels of reality. We have to work our way through duality, and then from duality to oneness.

You're speaking from the dualistic "level", which is always false when it comes to truth. We don't work our way through anything. We don't move from duality to oneness...oneness isn't a seperate thing from duality.

Okay lets say you are driving down the road and you see what looks like a puddle up ahead. It's a very hot day. You drive up and find no puddle, but it was just a mirage created by the heat coming up from the pavement.

Now what is true? Does the puddle exist AT ALL? The truth is that only the heat coming from the pavement exists, and the mirage is an illusion. The mirage has no control over your actions now because you know how things actually are. You may have swerved to avoid the puddle, but now you see how stupid that would be.

So it is with reality: there is one truth about it, and many illusions and delusions. The enlightened know the truth and experience no confusion about the way things seem to be. The deluded make up a huge game about how to escape from the grasp of "maya", by becoming "wise" and "enlightened" etc.

You know the Indian saying about the rope and the snake? Same thing. Do you think the person who knows the rope as the rope experiences a snake at all anymore? The snake is completely false and isn't part of that reality. Do you think a person can both believe there is a snake and believe there is a rope? Because that's what you're suggesting...that duality exists on some "level".

I am not enlightened, but just by being able to think with a clear mind, I know that what you're saying is false.

It's a matter of graduating from one to the other, and this is done grade by grade, to use a school analogy.

Wrong. There aren't different levels of being able to understand the absolute truth. You are either perfectly enlightened, or you're in with the rest of the bunch. Levels of enlightenment are for people who can't stand being mediocre.

I see what you are saying. Nevertheless, the path to oneness requires that we “deal with it” (duality).We cannot simply wish ourselves (“if we”) to enlightenment, hoping to safely disregard duality along the way. One cannot simply jump over duality to Enlightenment.

We can't do anything about it. Anything we do is based out of duality. Every thought we think is immersed in duality.

It's truly by the grace of God that such a thing could occur to someone. And then that person will see if there is actually a God or grace.

Besides, even a sage must meet his physical needs as long has he has a body. Day, night, yin, yang, duality can’t be ignored on the Earth plane. It doesn't just disappear.

A sage's "physical needs" are of no concern to the true sage...because that exists on the level of everything else which is completely based in delusion and falseness.

High moral code is, essentially, the way of the warrior (the spiritual warrior), but it can be adopted (in part) by individuals not on the path (i.e. the family man), and applied to society, as well, (i.e. by a wise king). It can be found as such places as the I Ching (Book of Changes), and the words of Jesus, Lao-tzu, Kierkegaard, and others.

Doesn't it say in the Bible that the ways of God are higher than the ways of man? Doesn't Lao-Tzu write that the Tao is above good and bad?

Scott,

CG: If you asking if books influence my experience, sure, but chiefly books corroborate my direct experience and contact. The written word is secondary, though important.

I ask such things because outside of books, things like this that you're talking about don't exist.

Nonsense.

Unless you speak strictly of the oneness level, on which books also don't exist.

Spiritual writings may try to talk about experiences, and truth, but it's bad when you use them as a map for spiritual experiences and truth in my opinion. They are people's interpretations of things. They can be very misleading.

True, which is why I consider them as secondary sources, however important in context.

It's important to see that a Buddha doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs.

Wrong. Regardless of "people's beliefs" Buddhas have existed and do exist.

On what do you base your statement?

CG: I exist.

SS: Is that really a true statement? What is "I"? Are you without a doubt sure that the "I" you're talking about exists?

Quite sure. Something exists here, and I choose to call it "I".

CG: You have it backwards. Delusion already has more than a foothold in your mind, and you are attempting to replace it with truth. This process can only happen a step at a time.

SS: I think you have it backwards. I'm not attempting anything, because I know that such a thing would be delusional...to attempt to replace delusion with truth. All I KNOW is that delusion is gone when the truth is known. Pretty simple! There is no process to living in reality, in the absolute truth. Any process takes place in the minds of deluded people.

I guess you could say the process is one of becoming ripe...but when enlightenment comes you fall off the branch. There aren't any fruits that are half on the branch and half falling off.

You are only imagining this to be true.

Haven't you heard others, such as David Quinn, speak of the process, the work involved, even saying how passionately one must want the truth?

This is not a natural process, like fruit ripening in the sun.

CG: Duality and oneness are two levels of reality. We have to work our way through duality, and then from duality to oneness.

SS: You're speaking from the dualistic "level", which is always false when it comes to truth. We don't work our way through anything. We don't move from duality to oneness...oneness isn't a seperate thing from duality.

Not separate, no. Duality is within oneness.

And, there surely is movement required, a process of coming to greater understanding, then to greater being.

Really, Scott, are you not aware of the stages involved? They are spoken of in Buddhism, and have been posted on this forum, for instance, by Kevin. This is elementary knowledge.

Okay lets say you are driving down the road and you see what looks like a puddle up ahead. It's a very hot day. You drive up and find no puddle, but it was just a mirage created by the heat coming up from the pavement.

Now what is true? Does the puddle exist AT ALL? The truth is that only the heat coming from the pavement exists, and the mirage is an illusion. The mirage has no control over your actions now because you know how things actually are. You may have swerved to avoid the puddle, but now you see how stupid that would be.

Yes, the spiritual path is fraught with mirages, which the pilgrim must learn to recognize.

So it is with reality: there is one truth about it, and many illusions and delusions. The enlightened know the truth and experience no confusion about the way things seem to be. The deluded make up a huge game about how to escape from the grasp of "maya", by becoming "wise" and "enlightened" etc.

No, the deluded, if they wish to become wise, elect to play the Master Game, by which they escape the grasp of maya. They don't make up a game, they play the one that already exists for that.

But you seem kinda down on enlightenment lately. Maybe you don't feel genetically up to it, at the moment, which is fine.

You know the Indian saying about the rope and the snake? Same thing. Do you think the person who knows the rope as the rope experiences a snake at all anymore? The snake is completely false and isn't part of that reality. Do you think a person can both believe there is a snake and believe there is a rope? Because that's what you're suggesting...that duality exists on some "level".

I don't think equating duality and oneness with a rope and snake is logical. I'm not saying the snake is within the rope. And I'm not saying the snake is a rope.

Anyway, what exactly is "the Indian saying about the rope and the snake?" I assume it refers to the legendary magic trick?

I am not enlightened, but just by being able to think with a clear mind, I know that what you're saying is false.

Your thinking does not seem particularly clear to me.

CG: It's a matter of graduating from one to the other, and this is done grade by grade, to use a school analogy.

SS: Wrong. There aren't different levels of being able to understand the absolute truth. You are either perfectly enlightened, or you're in with the rest of the bunch. Levels of enlightenment are for people who can't stand being mediocre.

False, and as long as you believe that, it will difficult for you to advance.

CG: I see what you are saying. Nevertheless, the path to oneness requires that we “deal with it” (duality).We cannot simply wish ourselves (“if we”) to enlightenment, hoping to safely disregard duality along the way. One cannot simply jump over duality to Enlightenment.

SS: We can't do anything about it. Anything we do is based out of duality. Every thought we think is immersed in duality.

It's truly by the grace of God that such a thing could occur to someone. And then that person will see if there is actually a God or grace.

That is a defeatist attitude, and will get a person nowhere.

If one has the potential to attain higher realms of existence, then it behooves that person to put in the required effort to realize the potential.

CG: Besides, even a sage must meet his physical needs as long has he has a body. Day, night, yin, yang, duality can’t be ignored on the Earth plane. It doesn't just disappear.

SS: A sage's "physical needs" are of no concern to the true sage...because that exists on the level of everything else which is completely based in delusion and falseness.

False. Hypothetical theory spoken as though by one who has not experienced that of which he speaks.

CG: High moral code is, essentially, the way of the warrior (the spiritual warrior), but it can be adopted (in part) by individuals not on the path (i.e. the family man), and applied to society, as well, (i.e. by a wise king). It can be found as such places as the I Ching (Book of Changes), and the words of Jesus, Lao-tzu, Kierkegaard, and others.

SS: Doesn't it say in the Bible that the ways of God are higher than the ways of man?

High moral code is the way of God.

Doesn't Lao-Tzu write that the Tao is above good and bad?

The Tao is above good and evil because it contains them, yes.

Carl,

"I ask such things because outside of books, things like this that you're talking about don't exist."

Nonsense.

Unless you speak strictly of the oneness level, on which books also don't exist.

That is the truth I'm speaking of. The only absolute truth. The stuff of which enlightenment is made.

"It's important to see that a Buddha doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs."

Wrong. Regardless of "people's beliefs" Buddhas have existed and do exist.

If you stepped outside of your beliefs, that would not be the case.

On what do you base your statement?

Nonduality.

"Is that really a true statement? What is "I"? Are you without a doubt sure that the "I" you're talking about exists?"

Quite sure. Something exists here, and I choose to call it "I".

Who is sure? For the answer that comes to mind for that question, I ask another: what exactly is that?

"I guess you could say the process is one of becoming ripe...but when enlightenment comes you fall off the branch. There aren't any fruits that are half on the branch and half falling off."

You are only imagining this to be true.

Wrong. I imagine nothing. This comes from reasoning about the nature of enlightenment, and satoris.

Haven't you heard others, such as David Quinn, speak of the process, the work involved, even saying how passionately one must want the truth?

I don't believe in David Quinn's philosophy. I only believe in what's true. All work is delusional because the ego is illusory, therefore the entire process is a grand delusion.

This is not a natural process, like fruit ripening in the sun.

It's unnatural? How can that be possible? Everything comes from cause and effect. Nothing can go against it.

"You're speaking from the dualistic "level", which is always false when it comes to truth. We don't work our way through anything. We don't move from duality to oneness...oneness isn't a seperate thing from duality."

Not separate, no. Duality is within oneness.

Stated from the dualistic (unenlightened) standpoint, yes. Stated from the nondualistic (enlightened) standpoint, no...duality is not within oneness. There is no duality.

And, there surely is movement required, a process of coming to greater understanding, then to greater being.

Those are both illusions. True enlightenment should dispell those.

Really, Scott, are you not aware of the stages involved? They are spoken of in Buddhism, and have been posted on this forum, for instance, by Kevin. This is elementary knowledge.

Yes it is elementary knowledge. When you get a little bit more advanced, all of the elementary knowledge is seen to be false.

Of course, becoming more advanced is seen to be false as well.

Yes, the spiritual path is fraught with mirages, which the pilgrim must learn to recognize.

The entire spiritual path is a mirage. The spiritual path is bondage, which enlightenment frees you of.

No, the deluded, if they wish to become wise, elect to play the Master Game, by which they escape the grasp of maya. They don't make up a game, they play the one that already exists for that.

The one that already exists is misunderstood. What I'm saying, if grasped, should bring more understanding to the real game of escaping the grasp of maya.

But you seem kinda down on enlightenment lately. Maybe you don't feel genetically up to it, at the moment, which is fine.

The way I see it, enlightenment doesn't exist. There's nothing for me to try to attain, because I am illusory and any attainment is illusory as well. There's nothing for me to do.

If someone handed me enlightenment in a bottle and said "drink it but beware because it can ruin your life" I probably wouldn't drink it. At least not for a few years until I became too curious to handle it. Because I know what enlightenment is, and it's not that big of a deal. It's better to just take it easy than it is to go all die hard on enlightening yourself. In my opinion!

I don't think equating duality and oneness with a rope and snake is logical. I'm not saying the snake is within the rope. And I'm not saying the snake is a rope.

Anyway, what exactly is "the Indian saying about the rope and the snake?" I assume it refers to the legendary magic trick?

The analogy goes: a man is walking and sees a snake and jumps in fright, then looks again and sees that it was just a rope. Duality is the snake, and the rope is nonduality.

Your thinking does not seem particularly clear to me.

Maybe it's not and I'm just fooling myself. But maybe it is and it just hasn't caught on in your mind yet.

"Wrong. There aren't different levels of being able to understand the absolute truth. You are either perfectly enlightened, or you're in with the rest of the bunch. Levels of enlightenment are for people who can't stand being mediocre."

False, and as long as you believe that, it will difficult for you to advance.

Says...you. You're getting kind of dramatic. How do you know if it's easy or difficult for me to advance or not? I think it's just a game you've made up in your head...one that many others play along with. But it has no place in reality.

I don't believe things...which is why I say there aren't levels of enlgihtenment. As long as I don't believe things, it will be very easy for me to "advance" because the truth is made apparent.

But we are the same, Carl. I don't consider myself more spiritually advanced than you, or you than me. We're just two human beings...and even that is stretching the truth.

"It's truly by the grace of God that such a thing could occur to someone. And then that person will see if there is actually a God or grace."

That is a defeatist attitude, and will get a person nowhere.

It's the way things are. You think you have control? That only goes to show what "level" you're at.

If one has the potential to attain higher realms of existence, then it behooves that person to put in the required effort to realize the potential.

I agree...but only because you said "if".

"A sage's "physical needs" are of no concern to the true sage...because that exists on the level of everything else which is completely based in delusion and falseness."

False. Hypothetical theory spoken as though by one who has not experienced that of which he speaks.

It may be the case that I'm wrong. I suggest you think about it some more. I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything by telling you...we all figure it out on our own.

Does the perfectly enlightened Buddha (the only one I consider a sage) worry about what to eat or if they've showered, when the body is seen as the rest of the world? What use would it be to hold onto such a small insignificant idea? Would a person with no self even be capable of holding onto an idea?

"Doesn't it say in the Bible that the ways of God are higher than the ways of man?"

High moral code is the way of God.

Says you. What does God say about it?

The Tao is above good and evil because it contains them, yes.

The Tao is above good and evil because good and evil are delusional ways of thinking...we're basically saying the same thing but making completely different points.

Scott,

Thanks for your last reply.

Let's just say I disagree with just about everything you wrote in it, and leave it at that for a while.

Cheers,

Carl,

That's fine. Perhaps I have been wrong. If that's the case then maybe I will see the errors I have made. Thanks for continuing on with the discussion this far...it's been enjoyable.