Tatsumaru

A brief review of this thread will reveal that most answers that were given can be summarized within the following statements:

[i believe I see things as they are, even though I contradict myself.]
[The universe will disappear.]

[The universe will not disappear.]

[There is God.]
[There are Gods.]

[There is no God.]

[i am limited to my body and I have no control, but I am not a slave (imprisoned).]

[i think therefore I exist (awareness arises from matter).]

[i exist, therefore I think (matter arises from awareness).]

[i believe that one disappears when one dies.]

[i believe that one doesn't disappear when one dies.]
 

My favorite one:
[Existence is impermanent] was said by the same person who said [The universe will never disappear]

Overall, the level of believing and self-contradiction was insanely high, which serves to show that people in this discussion are not honestly interested in truth and are instead interested in guarding their deeply held beliefs and knowledge accumulations (stuff that someone said, stuff that someone read, my father told me, my teacher told me). Thus I don't see the point of partaking in this discussion anymore personally and more replies from me are highly unlikely.

Finally I want to share this song with you:

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

 

You have misrepresented what I said.  The banana becomes a part of me.  I do not become a banana.  And for sure I did not become my mother's daughter.  I am a product of, not a replica of.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Perhaps I accept stimulate the way my body is designed to perceive the universe.  I don't take anything away and I don't add anything to it.  What you see is what you get.  If I have only nine fingers that all it means, that I have only nine fingers.  Now, if I didn't have a head there wouldn't be any me.

 

Excuse me, I'm just noting the contradictions in your statements. Fighting is not one of my goals, although I think politeness is overrated. Some posts ago you said that you are not just the brain, but now you said that if your head is removed, there wouldn't be any you left, which means that all of you is in the head/brain. Which means that you think that awareness arises from matter. You seem to be changing your ideas of what the you is and I'm just trying to understand you better.

 

Finally! I love my ego = I don't want to wake up.

 

Well, you love yours too.  That is very obvious.

 

To enjoy separation is to enjoy the dream.

 

You lost me with that one.

There is no such thing as spiritual atheist - an atheist is a belief in no god, spirituality is belief free.

 

Of course there is.  I just told you that I am one.  And you just associated spirituality with religion and that is the biggest mistake of all.

Plus you seem to believe that Tao is God which contradicts your other belief. Lol!

 

You have no idea how I view Tao.  And just to set your understanding straight, I use Tao as a verb, not a noun.  The is no thing "Tao".  Therefore there is no contradiction.

 

You have reached the point where you are trying to attack me instead of what I am saying.  That's not a good manner of discussion.

 

Ego = separation. As in  I versus rest. I have to survive, competition.

Love my ego = love my separation.

When did I associate spirituality with religion ever? In fact I stated the exact opposite - I said spirituality is belief free. I associated atheism with religion.

You just said you are a Taoist, but your statements do not appear to be Taoism-related.

For example you said that "what you see is what you get" and that awareness arises from matter:

“Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal”- Lao Tzu.

“Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth” - Lao Tzu

I'm not attacking you why would you assume that? I'm just commenting.

At least I have some.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

Is all consciousness energy?

 

Yes.

 

What about the still consciousness?

 

Still yes.

 

Energy is movement, so what about stillness?

 

Energy without a load on it.  There is perfect balance and no energy flow is detected.  But the energy is still there.

 

Think about it

 

I did.

 

Energy is movement, thus no-movement is no-energy. There is not still energy as there is no still electricity and still movement.

Back on topic. People are afraid to die because they haven't learned how to live right now.

You cannot learn from the past how to live in the now. You can only let go of the past and uncover the now. However there is a problem. The you that you think you are is also in the past, thus the you that you think you are cannot live in the now. Waking up is a suicide (of the false self).

I will just assume one does.

That's how religion perpetuates itself.

Right, as you are versed in philosophy that makes it much easier.

 

'I think therefore I am' is bull shit. Let's change it around 'I am therefore I think'.

 

Descartes was looking to do the same thing as all modern philosophers. What sticks in their craw is that consciousness has identity. Descartes, Kant and Hegel are responsible for the greatest lie mankind has been saddled with.

 

So, now we change it all around. We dump the mind body dichotomy because it never existed. We move existence into primacy in the same way we move the sun to the centre of the solar system and the earth into orbit around it. Existence has primacy over consciousness.

 

Consciousness is permanent as long as the entity is alive and conscious. Consciousness does not exist in a vaccum, it does not create existence. Consciousness must be conscious of some-thing.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

Now with objectivism we have integrated man. Body and soul if you like. Objectivism neither denies spirit nor matter. Instead it denies the separation within a living entity and mysticism which surrounds it.

 

On one side there are the spiritual Mystics that believe knowledge is only possible by some form of divine revelation, or transference. Then the muscle Mystics that do not believe knowledge is possible at all. Mystics flip flop from one to the other in order to keep the game going on. They are in both camps at one time or another.

 

The spirit exists in the total as semblance of the parts. You can't go looking for it in the atom or a toe nail. Existence is axiomatic as is consciousness and identity.

 

Test it out. I know you won't take my word for it and you definitely should not. It's easy to see this is true by simple intro and extrospection. Cast 'feeling' out and look at what you can objectively prove. Once you start down the path of being unable to prove anything its pointless to continue any kind of conversation. You disqualify yourself from any argument because every argument requires proof. All proof must ultimately rest of something metaphysical and perceived.

 

The senses are not deceivers, they are infallible perceivers. We do the perception automatically, but the conceptual we must do consciously. The wool is a given, but the garment we knit is not. We need rules, a pattern to knit the garment correctly or we end up with a big ball of knotted, nothingness.

 

No one knew what Buddah actually stated because he never wrote anything down.

Correct - I am, therefore I think. At least you realize you are not the thoughts. The opposite would suggest that one can rise from nothing and set into nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. Modern western philosophy is certainly a problem, as Descartes never realized that thought was just another sense.

True consciousness is conscious of true things, false consciousness if conscious of false things. True consciousness it truly existent, false consciousness is falsely existent. This is why you are not the 6th consciousness of thought, because it's not true. It's only an abstraction designed to glue thoughts together and create a sense for continuity that is required for survival in the physical world. But you are not that as you yourself asserted. Identification is not a problem, but identification with illusions is were suffering arises from. I have stated multiple times that absolute truth is inaccessible for the 6 senses, but that doesn't mean it's inexpressible. Please remember - we are not saying what is true here, we are saying what isn't true, so we can surrender the illusion bit by bit. The lower 6 senses are in the past, because everything you register as input is after the fact, thus the lower 6 senses never perceive the present, if you understand this you will understand why they are deceivers.

 

 

Are you saying that you are the body or the mind? 

 

Both and so much more.

 

The body is just accumulation of data. You see a banana on the table - if you say this is me, you are crazy, but if you eat the banana, 2 hours later it adds to the body. Now do you think it's you? Weren't you there before? 

 

Yes, the banana has become a part of me.  Note:  a part of me, not me.  I was prior to eating the banana and I still am after eating the banana.  But I changed a little bit because the banana is now a part of me.

What about the mind? You go to school, you study, you get a diploma. Now you say I am x the biologist with a perfect diploma. Are you the words in the text book  or the diploma, weren't you there before the diploma?

 

That's about labels.  The labels are not the person.

 

So, do you believe that you are what you accumulate? Then who accumulates it?

 

Trick question.  Not fair.  "I" was born.  What I was at birth is an accumulation of what my mother's body provided for me.  I have been gaining and losing every since that first day.  Constant change.  No permanence.  But it is still "me" in all my various and wonderful forms.

Say you are the body, but the body is a dissipative system without a single absolute particle. Where is 'you' in that process?

 

As I said, not just the body but so much more.  Difficult to define because it is constantly changing. 

If you cut one finger off , will you be lost? If you cut off all your limbs, will you be lost? Plenty of people without limbs - same personality. So are you the brain then? People tend to insist that they are the brain even though there is no trace of self there either. Why would one prefer to believe that they are the brain is beyond me. Just another organ in the body, just a piece of meat that gets too much attention.

 

Again, constantly changing.  One day a man with ten fingers and the next day a man with nine fingers.  But complete both before and after.

 

The rest is a bourgeois low-level zen joke: That things somehow only temporary exist, so don't get attached to them and that's the greatest liberation...

 

But if you buy a vacuum cleaner with no attachments you have bought something useless.

 

PS  I don't need to be liberated.  I'm not imprisoned.

 

If you are true to that tradition just kill yourself for complete liberation. Why wait?

 

Ha!  We Taoists are not allowed to kill our self.  We leave that in the hands of Tao.

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

Ha!  We Taoists are not allowed to kill our self.  We leave that in the hands of Tao.

Sounds like a Christian who believes he/she is a Taoist.

I think, therefore I am suggests that there are consequences to choices we make in life, and in that realisation some would become more open and responsible, or at least, be vulnerable to the possibility of seeking to adapt to changes.

 

I am, therefore i think seems but a mental stance subsumed within a belief of total independence, in control, and therefore all will be well. Its often a tricky assumption that could breed arrogance and denial. Such a view and its offshoots are based off Stoicism and related ideologies which are no better or worse than other ideologies. From a contemporary perspective, it has been noted that this is an archaic view which is often clung to determinedly by those who seek to negate the role of emotional responses, or even to ignore emotions as anything but sissified obstacles, and that only weaklings demonstrate them uncontrollably. 

 

Imo, its useless to argue that one is more appropriate than the other since individuals are conditioned from a young age to which direction they will likely bend. There is nothing challenging in keeping to either view. It seems the cause for spiritual quests to arise, therefore, is the longing in a person to go beyond philosophies and views that are merely operating within the bounds of intellect and logic. If one so choose adamantly that life should remain solely within these bounds, then the debates for transcendence and conversion of mundane attitudes to their spiritual equivalent becomes moot. 

I am, therefore I think is the core of Buddhism and Taoism. It's simply the realization that awareness doesn't arise from matter. You are completely independent of thought and feelings. This is nothing but a product of thought.

It boils down to the primacy of existence or consciousness and that's all. I am therefore I think is not a stoic view, it's not infact an objectivist claim either, but how I look at it. I stand to be corrected by other objectivists.

 

There is no claim to emotions being a weakness or anything else you claim except for independence of thought. Man has the nature which might be thought of as a kind of prime mover within the envelope of 'first obey nature, then adapt nature'. Man is a creative force in the universe unlike, for instance, a comet that obeys only the nature of physics and cannot change its course by will. We cannot create out of nothing, but we can change arrangements of things into new arrangements and that is creativity in action.

 

There is nothing beyond these bounds. Neither is it true that one is permanently conditioned. I was very much in the primacy of consciousness camp before I grasped the logical problem with that view. Spirituality is within us and our actions are without. This leads to a tremendous expansion of consciousness-we can evolve by our own efforts to evolve and our only tool for doing so is our minds.

It's hard to believe that a person who is so full of beliefs, actually realized "I am, therefore I think".

There is nothing you said there I would care to argue with.  And I have already told you I love my ego.

 

 

Edit to add:  Well, how about "Spiritual Atheist"?

Finally! I love my ego = I don't want to wake up. To enjoy separation is to enjoy the dream.

There is no such thing as spiritual atheist - an atheist is a belief in no god, spirituality is belief free.

Plus you seem to believe that Tao is God which contradicts your other belief. Lol!

Hehehe.  I don't put much trust in economics either.  I am very, very reserved at offering trust.

You certainly trust your senses.

Existence is the seen, the phenomenological world as we know it. 

Consciousness lies within the domain of potential, and that which brings existence into being. 

Potential is the seat of creativity, therefore it is more fundamental than existence. 

 

Existence antecedent to consciousness is a claim only the brave would dare consider. 

Nagarjuna is disappointed.

I assure you I'm not brave :-) it's simple for me to see that consciousness must be conscious of some-thing. You haven't had all these perceptions poured into your head and then somehow discover them like hidden memories. Therefore it's clear that existence exists prior to consciousness in order for consciousness to be conscious of it. As consciousness has an identity, it is also existent and there you are ;-)

Yes! Yes! The only part you are missing is that true consciousness is conscious of true existence and false consciousness is conscious of false existence (illusions).

How about the consideration that existence exists in tandem with consciousness, or is that out of the question? 

 

It would be interesting to hear further how you came to posit that consciousness possess identity because Peter Russell seems to logically present the argument that identity evolves from consciousness and not otherwise,   and i concur with his position. 

 

Thank you for the input!  Its great to be able to exchange views without any knicker-knotting  

Yes, we have a very nice discussion going on here even though it is off topic from the thread opening post.

 

It is always fun talking about consciousness because it is so hard to define.

 

Consciousness is a form of energy.  Is all energy conscious?  I doubt it.  It is conscious in our brain though.

Is all consciousness energy? What about the still consciousness? Energy is movement, so what about stillness? Think about it

No, that is material change. Living things are living until they aren't, it's a binary transition like on/off. A body without life is just flesh and bone.

So what is life then? And what is "just flesh and bone". You seem to be stuck at the "Cogito ergo sum" level.

The philosophical proposition of René Descartes (Je pense donc je suis) more widely known as Cogito ergo sum, is often considered the foundation for all knowledge. This Cartesian premise, “I think, therefore I am [or I exist],” which is to say, the “i think” or ego comes before the I am (as if awareness arises from matter), presupposes that the mental sense organ (the sixth sense) is separate from the other senses.

Ironically, concerning the other five senses (hearing, touching, seeing, smelling, and tasting), Descartes articulated, “All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once.”

In Buddhist and Taoist traditions, six physical sense organs (the five that Descartes considered deceivers, plus the “i think”) are called the Sadāyatana’s, each having their own way of perceiving the world, and are all recognized as deceivers.

Life is a binary state, it does not 'decompose'. You are alive and then you are dead. The second state is unchanging, it is permanent. Existence exists, but without consciousness of existence what is there ? So Buddah is quite correct to state it in those terms. It makes it clear that the only true permanence for an individual conscious being is death. A state which is unalterable. Self ceases to exist.

Buddha never stated anything like that. In fact he stated the exact opposite - that the only true consciousness is permanent.

It should be obvious. Life is movement. Things that don't change are dead. Death is the end of life and you can be certain that it is irreversible and therefore no change is possible for the non existent self.

Dead things change, they decompose, they rot, they continue to fall apart.  This is pretty obvious as well.  You fellows both win, how about that?  Can you be happy with that?  Or is the fact that you are both right all too close to the fact you are both wrong?

Well 9th, you are actually right. Movement certainly doesn't stop with perceived death. That's why there is no such thing as life or death. It's just a process.

Karl, you are not even making sense anymore. At which point does the dead body stop moving. Energy never stops.

Dead things do change, thus things that do not change cannot be called dead.

Energy is a function of work/movement, thus if there's no change, there's no energy. This is beyond your idea of life/death.

Stop trying to find an example for the absolute reality in the dream.

I hold to a different option.  There is a self.  It came into existence when I was born.  It will die when my body dies.  End of story.

 

Yeah, things don't exist in the sense they aren't permanent. If you misunderstand that you get hit with a stick or kicked.

 

Do roshis still do that?

Are you saying that you are the body or the mind? 

The body is just accumulation of data. You see a banana on the table - if you say this is me, you are crazy, but if you eat the banana, 2 hours later it adds to the body. Now do you think it's you? Weren't you there before? 

What about the mind? You go to school, you study, you get a diploma. Now you say I am x the biologist with a perfect diploma. Are you the words in the text book  or the diploma, weren't you there before the diploma?

So, do you believe that you are what you accumulate? Then who accumulates it?

Say you are the body, but the body is a dissipative system without a single absolute particle. Where is 'you' in that process?

If you cut one finger off , will you be lost? If you cut off all your limbs, will you be lost? Plenty of people without limbs - same personality. So are you the brain then? People tend to insist that they are the brain even though there is no trace of self there either. Why would one prefer to believe that they are the brain is beyond me. Just another organ in the body, just a piece of meat that gets too much attention.

The rest is a bourgeois low-level zen joke: That things somehow only temporary exist, so don't get attached to them and that's the greatest liberation...

If you are true to that tradition just kill yourself for complete liberation. Why wait?

Proof presupposes existence. You just blew yourself up.

What?

Then this is your logic based on your definitions. I suspected that you had a static view of an absolute. So this is how you have created your false reality.

 

Step back a bit.

 

Self is the mind which perceives reality.

Reality is an absolute.

Change presupposes that something changes from one thing to another. This presupposes the law of identity.

Everything in reality has an identity and acts according to its nature.

Causality is the law of identity applied to action.

Causality is change.

 

It is you premise which is wrong. You have assumed an absolute is static and unchanging, but this is not the case in a dynamic universe. The self is an absolute, but it is changing. This is reality. It does not deny identity because it changes, it presupposes it.

Some of your deductions were incorrect:

"Change presupposes that something changes from one thing to another. This presupposes the law of identity."

Things do not change.

I explained this in a previous reply, but you are disregarding it.

"A lot of people think that if nothing really exists, how can anything function? However, Nagarjuna said that it is precisely because everything does not really exist that everything functions. If everything were truly existent, existing in and of itself and thus being unchanging, things would not depend on anything. But then they could not interact with each other either because that entails change. Therefore, it is only due to everything changing all the time that interaction and functioning are possible."

Thus whatever exists doesn't change, whatever changes doesn't exist.

The rest of your deductions based on identity were also incorrect because they were based on the error explained above.

Who is talking about the universe? The universe is not real... Again whatever exists doesn't change, whatever changes doesn't exist.

Stop looking for the absolute within the dream. It's futile. This world, this life, this universe... It's a dream, time to wake up...

I will disprove it, but I require you to first define 'self', and 'absolute'. Unless we define it accurately there is every likelihood we won't be referring to the same thing.

Absolute = Something that exists in and of itself, it cannot be further simplified, it doesn't change or move.

Ab-solute literally means it cannot be in a solution with - thus it's not relative.

Self is the absolute truth about who you are aka that self which exists in and of itself

This is the Buddhist/Taoist definition of self with which I agree. Essentially it's the same thing I said, but in more detail.

Self is synonymous with Tathagata/Clear Light/Tao:

Consciousness is not a thing separated from that which it is observing. Putting it differently, it can be said that the observed is none other than consciousness since you its illogical to say that one is not conscious while observing an object. And saying "I am conscious" is also without meaning if its not being conscious of something. Being conscious of something is different from identifying with it, so one can identify or not identify while being conscious of the observed. I think its incorrect therefore to state bluntly that consciousness is identification since to identify objects labels and names are necessary, yet consciousness are not dependent on these labels and names. For example, being exposed to something completely new and strange, like hearing a foreign language for the first time, one remains fully conscious of the sound and movement of the speaker's lips but completely incoherent to the meanings behind the sounds.

 

This principle applies to all things filtered in thru the senses, and because these senses are conditioned by a multitude of factors which are unique to each individual, it follows that notions of the self, which relies on data imputed via the senses to form an identity, are nothing more than an estimate, whereby these estimates again depend on degrees of cognition and levels of awareness. Two pairs of eyes seeing a mountain, for example, cannot objectify it identically other than on a gross level involving gross notions - however, as distinctions get subtler and subtler, variations to the theme will become more apparent. 

Exactly, input that is conditioned by the past cannot perceive reality. As I have said many times on this thread - to say that truth is personal is to say that there is no difference between true and false.

Let go of the past, and you will uncover truth. No, the ego cannot let go of the past, because ego is of the past. 

I'm going to re-post this video because it's one of the most important videos ever.

Truth is the recognition of reality. The metaphysically given is an absolute. Metaphysical facts are reality.

 

You are confusing perceptual fact with conceptual error. Existence exists, A is A, a thing is a thing. We need logic in order to minimise error in conception, but not for perceptual fact. Our senses and our perception are truth. It is impossible to relate to something which has no metaphysical existence. You can build relativistic castles in the sky, but you cannot live in them. You can create things, but not out of nothing, you can only change a collection of things into some other kind of arrangement.

 

The idea of yesterday and tommorrow, of time itself is conceptual only. The reality is the ongoing causality that is observed as metaphysical fact. Space is the relationship between two or more metaphysical objects, but space is a relative concept. Man categorises existent objects conceptually. Perception does not categorise anything at all. Man can make an error in the first, but not in the second.

 

You can note these differences between the conceptual and the perceptual, the metaphysical and the epistemological. However you must relate the conceptual to perceptual fact. Concepts must be grounded in metaphysical reality, or they are just floating abstractions. You have your senses to engage with existent reality and that is all you have in terms of providing proof.

 

I would ask you to define proof and truth and you will have to define it in relation to existents. You are stuck with it no matter how many conceptual castles you build. To say the truth is unknowable is a dereliction of the mind. It is to give up, to surrender the mind completely, to say because I have a mind I am unable to think.

Yes, truth is the recognition of reality. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding the metaphysical absolute etc.

Existence exists, sure.

A thing is a thing, sure.

Let's make it even simpler.

What do you know for sure? Forget about gods and selves and metaphysics, let's examine the basics...

One thing you know by default is that existence is not nothing, because nothing doesn't exist. When the word "nothing" is mentioned, many people think of it of some sort of infinite blackness or something else, but that's not correct. Nothing doesn't exist. No such thing as nothing, thus infinite blackness is infinite blackness. Even if the whole world is an illusion and a simulation etc, it's still isn't nothing. So far so good right?

Now at this point it's a good idea to ask who am I?/what am I? Forget about souls, reincarnation, metaphysics etc. Just inquire into what's going on.

The idea of self may arise from the fact that you feel separated from your surroundings or because you don't have control over what's going on. You don't feel omnipresent or omniscient, nor do you remember creating the whole world. If you created the whole world (like Solipsists think) then who created you? Did you appear out of nothing even though nothing doesn't exist? Solipsism is easy to dismiss. Nihilism is easy to dismiss as well as shown in my previous post.

When you see someone dying you can verify that the you who you think you are is not absolute. Now many people will say, but what about the soul, isn't it absolute? The soul concept can be dismissed easily as well. Basically the idea of soul is that there is something absolute in yourself, that goes somewhere else when the body dies. Again we ask " Can an absolute thing exist within time?" If you say yes that means that you think that there are things which change, but do not change at the same time which is wrong. Thus there is no absolute self within time and thus no soul.

You are only left with two choices:

A. There is no self.

B. There is a self outside of time.

Vedantins and some Zen schools believe there is no self and the idea of self is an illusion.

Most Buddhist schools that I know of talk about an absolute self that is outside of time, except for maybe Theravada.

The Buddha wanted to uncover why people suffer and he realized that people are attached to things that do not exist. He realized that people believe that processes are things, that a Table for example has intrinsic, essential "tableness" that the table arises from. So he observed life and realized that the table is made of wood, and the wood is made of soil, and the soil is made of bodies (generally speaking). He realized that a Table is only an idea, because that same Table could be something completely else for someone else, like chair for someone or food for termites.

He realized that people are attached to things that do not exist absolutely and that if you are attached to something that is not absolute then suffering is inevitable because whatever is not absolute is constantly changing. So then he wanted to find out if there is something absolute, and so on.

Buddha realized that the root of suffering is the desire for things to be other than they are.

Or in different words the desire for illusions to be truth, which is important, since you want truth to be defined within the context of the relative which is futile. Again - to say that truth is personal is to say that there is no difference between true and false. Relative truth is personal truth, there is no such thing.

Where's your proof ?

 

Of course there is a self and the self will die and that will be all. Existence will continue regardless of there being a consciousness able to observe it.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

No consciousness, no identification.

I explained this many times, but you are in denial. This is going to be the last time. Please read it carefully.

1. If there is no self, then there is no self that was born and that will die. That much is clear.

2. If there is a self, then it can only be absolute. If the self is not absolute then whatever you call self is changing, if it's changing it's dependent on something else to exist, because change means interaction, if it depends on something else to exist then it's a process that's not limited by boundaries, because if it's limited by boundaries then it cannot interact with whatever it originates from. To put it simply if it's not just you, then how can it be just you? If it's not a self, then how can it be a self?

Thus if something is changing it's not absolute. If what you call your self is changing it's not absolute, but based on the logic above it cannot be a self. unless it's absolute.

If you want to continue this discussion please disprove my logic, otherwise I'm not interested in repeating the same thing over and over.

Yeah, but let's face it.  These little things still matter while I am alive.  And yes, I have visited San Francisco many a time.  I love the area but the weather is a bit too cold for me.

 

When I die these things won't matter.  That's a given.  But then, "I" won't exist when I die so nothing will matter.  Dead is dead.

If you believe that there is no self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

If you believe that there is a self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

Better find out.

This is why we cannot discount conventional or expedient means in order to arrive at a nondescript absolute. We cannot assert this absolute by negating the relative. 

Well you better scold whoever wrote the Heart Sutra fast then, because that's precisely what it's doing.

Remember what was said by the Buddha: "The Tathagata doesn't come and go".

If you think that the present is part of time then you must disprove the following statement:

"There is no present in time"

and then

"The Tathagata doesn't come and go". (because if present was part of time, then there is nothing outside of time, but if there is nothing outside of time, then the absolute Tathagata is within time, which means it's not absolute and it does indeed come and go)

I don't envy the one wishing to fit the absolute within time.

Actually what we call the 'present' is simply an echo or imprint left behind by what has passed. 

Are you saying that the present is the past? That's problematic, because that means there is no present, only past. But how can there be past without a present. If you are considering present as an effect then there must be something preceding the present. What is it? Are you saying the present arises out of the past? Then what does the past arise out of? I love radical thinking, but I don't think you are correct.

Let's cut to you sophist/skeptic philosophy, because, unwittingly you are following that philosophy whether you know it or not.

 

This is in your final conclusion. Which, makes it far easier to follow your deduction than the rest of your argument which is ephemeral.

 

"I can know truth (reality) only by the characteristic that truth (reality) does not change"

 

That is not a new argument and has been thoroughly debunked by Aristole who came after the sophists.

 

What you failed to notice was that change itself IS reality. Our senses do not lie. Our perceptions of reality are perfect. However it is our conceptual integrations that can be in error.

 

From this mess of Kantian/Hegelian philosophy comes the pseudo science of quantum theory. Another attempt to adopt scepticism and weld it to science. This is what Thomas Aquinas did with religion. He attempted to make religion 'scientific' and thence prevent reason from ousting spiritual mysticism once and for all. To an extent he succeeded. However, along came Kant and where there was room for spiritual mysticism, then surely there must be room for muscle mysticism. Reason lost the battle then. Once Hegel triumphed by removing God completely, the philosophy of collectivism was born. Now man had neither reason, nor God. Man had abandoned both to pragmatic subjectivism and in rushed the communists and fascists slaughtering men like daisies before a scythe.

Lol. Replying to you reminds me about my grandfather who is also extremely stubborn. It's okay though, I'm not in a hurry.

So basically you believe that there is no absolute truth. Absolute truth by definition doesn't change, so if you are saying that there is no such thing, then you are saying that there is no absolute truth, which is silly even from a conceptual point of view, because if there was no absolute truth, then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an absolute truth.

Since you love your schools of philosophy so much, guess which school is based upon a denial of absolute truth - Nihilism.

Their view is that nothing really exists except the relative, meaning that there is a real world in your brain and nothing else which already contradicts the notion that nothing exists.

The consequences of nihilism are to believe that somehow you are able to interpret an external event with your brain, even though there is nothing outside of your brain. Thus somehow you are absolute because nothing is outside of your perception, but at the same time relative because everyone has their own idea of reality. Furthermore you somehow appeared out of nothing and exist in nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. You somehow appeared out of yourself, from nothing... No wonder Nietzsche (a prominent nihilist) lost his mind. Remember what I said in the beginning - to suggest that truth is personal is to suggest there is no difference between true and false. If everything you come up with is true, then there is no false. Thus truths can contradict each other and that is not problem, thus there is no truth and no lie etc.

Forget about Aristotle, who didn't debunk anything. Aristotle believed in gods and duality. Aristotle believed in oneness, ignoring the fact that there is no one without a many. He didn't uncover a single absolute truth. Focus on Socrates and Plato if you are true seeker of truth.

I'm not an expert on quantum theory, although I'm familiar with some basic premises and I can say that they are certainly problematic to people who cling to Aristotelian logic for their identity. Such people are not interested in truth. Quantum theory states that on the sub-atomic level there are no particles which is consistent with Buddhism's "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is also form". Gautama uncovered this many years before expensive laboratory equipment simply by wondering about absolute truth - there cannot be an absolute particle that gives rise to the relative world since that would entail change for the absolute particle. Thus scientists will never find an absolute particle.

As for change being reality - consider the present. Present is just a single moment, not an event, thus the present is not part of time. So if present is not part of time then, there is nothing changing in the present. So where is that reality you are talking about? Are you saying that there is no present and only past? That would be a bold statement... and an incorrect one.

To put it simply a nihilist believes that nothing really exists, but the relative, because somehow there is a self, even though nothing exists. You have to choose either nothing exists and no self exists, or a self exists beyond time. You don't get to mix absolute and relative truths. That is the ego's highest desire, to make the impermanent permanent. Such quest is doomed and is the root of suffering according to Buddha.

Interesting thoughts in there about truth.  However, you are speaking of "ultimate truth".  Taoists call that "Tao".  Christians call it God.  Most scientists call it the "Big Bang".

 

But, in everyday life there are smaller but very important truths.  These are aspects of the Manifest.  Yes, objective reality.  I can't fly of my own power and capabilities.  But I can get in an airplane and fly.

Yes, Taoists call it Tao, Buddhists call it Clear Light, or Tathagata.

Christians are not interested in truth so whatever they say is irrelevant. Many Buddhists are not interested in truth either, to be honest. There is a reason why Buddha explained that there is no God, and it isn't semantic.

Scientists are not interested in absolute truth either. A big bang wouldn't be an ultimate truth since whatever has a beginning has an end. Many scientists like Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle suggest that the Big Bang is a myth.

You are correct, my point is about what's ultimately true. These so called planes, countries, travelling, eating - it's not really happening, this is the movie in the cinema. What is important about it when you die? When you are dying are you going to think about planes and food and say, "good thing I got to visit San Francisco or else I would have lived in vain"? I doubt it. The only thing that matters is what doesn't change.

 

There are no miracles, the title of the book is lame. You should be aware of six senses at least, unless you are handicapped: 

 

I guess I'm handicapped then.  But I'm glad you agree that there are no miracles.

(1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) brain organ-consciousness

the 6th is the so called thinking mind, which is just a tool for survival and browsing a database of memories, so it's always in the past. Nothing new there (get it?)

 

I have had this discussion before.  The most fun was discussing it with Vmarco.  I do miss him.  What you refer to as being the sixth sense I call the collection agent - the brain with its nervous system.

 

There are many consciousnesses, one of them is the ego yes.

 

I'm glad we agree on that.  And I do see what you are pointing at, it's just that I have problems with that view.

 

Yes, I fully agree that the enemy is the false idea of what you are. Once the false is gone, the real is left (it's always there since it's real, but it's veiled by false ideas).

 

Our disagreement is concerning what aspect of "all that we are" should be designated as an enemy.

 

It's impossible to attain inner peace with the ego intact... What are you talking about? The ego means the illusion of separation, the ego means hope and fear. The ego means the past and the future. The ego can never experience the present. The ego can never experience truth.

 

Oh, but it's very possible!  I am a perfect example.  No, the ego means the total completeness of the being.  But I would agree, a false ego would lead to hope and fear.  For me, the ego includes the past, present and future.  I don't agree with the last two sentences but cannot right now offer a counter argument

Well a collection agent is pretty much what a sense is. Eyes and ears are also collection agents, so if you refer to your brain as a collection agent, then it's easy to view it as a sense. I forgot to explain that the 6th sense is not some intuition psychic thing as is thought in the west, so maybe that's why you thought you were handicapped.

As for the ego being able to experience the present, consider this. The ego is the consciousness of thought. Thought is always in the past because, thought is browsing past data. A thought is always based in the past. Thus a thought about the present is impossible. This is extremely important because it dismantles the whole new agey industry of "here and now". Many pseudo-zen buddhists will claim that watching birds without thoughts is being in the present, but consider this. In order to see, you perceive the light that takes time to travel from whatever you are observing to your eyes, this light then needs to be interpreted by your brain and an image must be generated in your brain. But what is interpretation? It's basically translating based on a database of knowledge. Someone might say - big deal, who cares that I'm seeing the bird with 1 millionth of a second delay (or whatever that lag is), but that's not the case. Consider that the present is still - it's just one moment really. If past is an event from A to B, then the present is just A, so there's no movement. So if there is no movement then how come you are seeing events? This points to the fact that all events and thoughts are in the past, so there is no way for the ego to experience the present. The present is not even the same dimension... This is huge.

Oh, my!  They have it all backward.

 

BTW  I don't do or even believe in miracles.

 

I still have only five senses.  I guess I haven't evolved well.

 

BTW (again)  Consciousness and self-awareness are the ego.  It's nothing special.  We all have one.  Most of us misunderstand our ego because it has been shaped by others.  It is just as real as one who fully understands themselves.  It's just that it has been manipulated to the point of being a false image.

 

Our enemies (and yes, we all have mental enemies) are the false images we have of ourself.  Most of these enemies have been planted into our mind by others.  These are the enemies that must be destroyed.  Once destroyed we can finally see our true self.

 

 Our ego should be the tool that drives us to be all that we can be in order to attain inner peace and contentment.  Any thoughts we have in our mind that are counter to this state of being is an enemy.  Destroy it!

There are no miracles, the title of the book is lame. You should be aware of six senses at least, unless you are handicapped: 

(1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) brain organ-consciousness

the 6th is the so called thinking mind, which is just a tool for survival and browsing a database of memories, so it's always in the past. Nothing new there (get it?)

There are many consciousnesses, one of them is the ego yes.

Yes, I fully agree that the enemy is the false idea of what you are. Once the false is gone, the real is left (it's always there since it's real, but it's veiled by false ideas).

It's impossible to attain inner peace with the ego intact... What are you talking about? The ego means the illusion of separation, the ego means hope and fear. The ego means the past and the future. The ego can never experience the present. The ego can never experience truth.

Clearly I'm not getting through to you.

 

I say again, if nothing is real in this dream, then by what method can you prove a statement within the dream such as "recognising everything you see and think is falsehood..."

 

I know exactly who I am, but it appears you can't know exactly who you are because of this dream you say you have woken from, but in which there were no methods to prove anything.

 

What does 'see with your own authority" ? That sounds like a revelation to me. Revelations belong to the spiritual Mystics. It's interesting that you now cite 'scientists' as having some proof that you now depend upon to prove your argument, yet, you have admitted no proof is possible in this dream world.

 

Are you scientists in the dream world or in this new space in this new reality ? You are of course now relying on the Mystics of muscle to support your ideology. This is simply the sophist approach and it's a common cop out for intrincisists that see their towers begin to topple.

 

You believe whatever you want. All I'm saying is you should check your premise because they are conflicted. One or other must be right, not both. Either you are in a dream world in which no proof is possible, no statement means anything and no one exists, or you are not.

 

When we are awake we are fully aware of the concept of dreaming. There is no point at which we confuse the two states. If you were in a dream state then where would the information arise from beyond the dream state to let you know you were living in one ? If the information came to you from the dream state then it's dream information anyway and even if you thought you woke up, you just woke up inside the same big 'ole dream.

 

As soon as you begin ' I can't know reality, I can't prove anything' then you fall on your sword. You are left with divine revelation and sophist mumbling so about scientific proof that we can't have proof. You are saying 'I can't know anything is true, but I can know that this is true'. That's the contradiction and the flaw. This is why intrincisists get into circular arguments about 'revelations and Gods word being true' they cannot explain how they know it's true, except to say God is truth. It's true because it's true.

So basically you are saying, if nothing in the dream is real, then how do you know what is true in order to recognize it when you experience it, right? Well that's a great question. One way of realizing you are in the dream is by asking "what is a thing?". A lot of people think that if nothing really exists, how can anything function? However, Nagarjuna said that it is precisely because everything does not really exist that everything functions. If everything were truly existent, existing in and of itself and thus being unchanging, things would not depend on anything. But then they could not interact with each other either because that entails change. Therefore, it is only due to everything changing all the time that interaction and functioning are possible. Ponder on this for a moment...

So this is basic logic that isn't pointing to what things are, but to what they aren't. You can play with it and try to prove it wrong, but you won't succeed (but please do try). Again we are not talking about what things are, but what they aren't. Since the lower 6 senses cannot comprehend emptiness the only thing we can do at this point is to recognize that we are not perceiving reality as it is. So if things in this dimension don't really exist then how can a self exist? Thus you realize that 1. either there's no self or 2. the self is not here. You must find out which one is true. However in both scenarios an idea that there is a true self here is ridiculous so you can recognize that your perception of what's going on is not real. The you that you think you are is not real. Basically you realize that you are not seeing truth because what you see cannot be truth by any definition. The only thing that is left is to surrender what is false, so only the truth is left at the end.

"Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold." - Leo Tolstoy

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge” - Stephen Hawking

Please read my words more carefully. I never said anywhere that the scientists have proof of truth. I only said that scientists know that the senses aren't perceiving reality. So basically they have proof of illusion and understand that what we perceive as real is not real. This is not proof of truth. I don't know what you are talking about, different approaches, cop outs... you are not paying attention is all. You seem to be looking for an example of truth in a dream world. Such goal is futile. As I explained the only thing we can do is to explain what is not true, in order to let go of it.

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying.

You are correct that when we are awake we are fully aware of what dreaming is all about. You seem to be looking for a truth in the dream that would suggest you are dreaming. Is that possible? The only thing you get in the dream is the realization that what you think is going on cannot be real, because basically you perceive things in the absence of things. Thus you don't know what truth is, but you know that whatever you perceive isn't truth. This is the beginning of the journey. So there is no true information in the dream state, there is only realization of lies. As I said multiple times already, it's not about earning and learning your way out of the dream, since nothing from the dream can propel you towards truth. It's about UN-learning what is false in order to uncover a truth.

I never said that you can't know reality. I said that the you who you think you are (which is not real) cannot know reality. Drop your philosophies about this school of philosophy or that school of philosophy, this isn't about any school or approach. This is a simple regurgitation of what is obvious. You need to ask yourself the question - what is truth? Obviously truth is something that doesn't change, if it changes then it's not this or that, so you can't rely on it to make any conclusions. So knowing that truth doesn't change, and that everything you experience with the lower 6 senses is changing, the only obvious conclusion is that you aren't experiencing truth. Read this a few times until you grasp it. There are no contradictions here.

There are many gods.

Have you seen them?

Done that projector thing already. I do fancy that spaghetti dish in you avatar mind you.

 

You exist and are alive, do you doubt it ?

I exist, but I am not alive. The only one who believes is alive is the ego-consciousness. If you still think you are alive then you haven't "done that projector thing". Again this sounds peculiar, but in the present there is no movement and thus no life. "No life" doesn't mean death, it just means a reality beyond movement and change, beyond life and death altogether. The only reality actually.

And you are awake ? How do you know your belief isn't another illusion. You can't believe anything you hear, or see in this video game world, so what makes you think these things you believe are any more real if nothing is real ?

 

You should wake up to reality before you get lost down a self created delusionary worm hole of insanity.

So basically you are asking - when you wake up, how do you know you are actually awake and not just gone crazy? That's a great question actually. This question arises because you do not know who you are, it comes from the mind, otherwise this question wouldn't arise. It's just not good enough to intellectually understand what you are. Statements like "I am consciousness" or "I am life" or "I am beyond life" - obviously it's not good enough. This is something that can't be practiced. You have to see it with your own authority. If you understand this, then you know that whatever answer I give you other than this one, won't be satisfactory. You seem to want to wake up from a dream but take the dream with you as well - that is impossible. Forget about the dream, surrender it altogether.

And again I don't hold beliefs about what is true. Everything I say is simply a regurgitation of the absolute truth that "whatever changes is not something that doesn't change". The only reason you are confused is because you enjoy your beliefs because they are giving your consolation and what I am saying is threatening those beliefs - that you are life, that you are what you see or hear. Even scientists know at this point that the senses do not provide an actual picture of reality so why are you still struggling?

“Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth” - Lao Tzu.

When you said "you can't believe anything you hear or see in this video game world" you were exactly right! Waking up is not about making sense of the dream/video game. It's about realizing it's false and awakening to your true nature. Once you wake up you will experience all of what I am saying with absolute certainty.

No, the video didn't help.

 

But the ego-consciousness is a part of me.  If I let it go then I would not be complete.

 

Your asking a career soldier to surrender?  You gotta be joking!

The ego-consciousness is not part of you, it's a simulation. It's something like an onboard computer of your body vehicle.

Read this carefully a few times:

"The ego [sciential consciousness of the 6th sense of thought] uses the body to conspire against your mind [sapiential consciousness beyond the 6 senses], and because the ego realizes that its "enemy" [the sapiential mind] can end them both [ego and body] merely by recognizing that they are not part of you [the sapiential mind, your Unborn Awareness]; they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves. The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the mind, which is real, that the mind is ego's learning device, and further, that the body is more real than the mind is. No one in [his or her] right mind could possibly believe this, and no one in [his or her] right mind does believe it." A Course In Miracles 6 IV 5.

So it's the other way around - until you let go of it, you won't be complete.

Even after you wake up you have to maintain the body with food and housing etc and play by the rules of the game of life. Unless you become a sadhu beggar or something like that.

Once you wake up, life doesn't matter anymore. You can maintain the body if you want to teach other people, but you can also leave the body if you want.

when only "God" is seen or known regardless of form or non-form then "reality" is seen or known

There is no  God.

Ok, but try telling that to your bank manager or landlord when they next come knocking 

In video games you also have to complete quests, earn money, buy food and weapons etc.

Life is literally the same.

Until you wake up you need to maintain this body with food, housing, money etc. There is no problem with working and eating etc, however it's just a video game. Right now you believe you are the game and not the player. That's the root of suffering.

Wake up before the body dies.

Although I can't deny what you say is true I am more of a fan of the two truths doctrine, that relative and absolute truths are both important, otherwise there is a risk of falling into nihilism

Relative intellect wants us to believe that it, the “i think” and “i sense” is real, and that to sustain ego, it must promote the absolute as nothing but nihilism; an activity which obscures the real joy they inherently desire to experience. Absolute truth is the end of your ego, thus the ego creates these unsettling feelings whenever it is threatened. Ignore them and focus on what's true. The ego wants you to think that the absolute truth is something other than pure joy and bliss, because if you realize that the absolute is pure joy then you won't treasure it anymore. The absolute is absolutely real and existing, a nihilist believe that nothing exists, so this is reality not nihilism.

 

 

If one believes it then fear is still there, because belief means hope, hope means fear.

 

Good point.  I try to not use the word "hope" too often.

If one knows it's an illusion and has experienced that it's an illusion then the only fear that remains is bodily fear as a survival mechanism but a complete depersonalization and disassociation with the body.

 

Ah!, I just can't disassociate myself from my body because it is within my body that my brain lies.

 

Naturally the ego-consciousness cannot let go of the ego-consciousness. But you are not the ego-consciousness, only misidentifying with it. Try this one:

The only thing you need to do is to surrender to your real self.

In what way is life an illusion?

Life is time, space, movement, energy, change. There is no time, space, movement, energy or change in the absolute.

Life doesn't really exist.

To better understand this consider this scenario. If you are in a cinema - then the absolute is the still light in the projector and life is a movie projected on the screen.

I don't mean that life is an illusion, rather a lot of the beliefs and stories we live by (and will often go to great lengths to protect) are illusory, in the sense they don't match up to the reality of the way things really are. 

Life is an illusion. Reality is beyond life.