A Challenge to Genep

Prince_James,



The problem with this conception is that it does not take into consideration the other aspects ofs consciousness, namely, awareness, sensory perception, emotional perception, and the observance of thoughts.

I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?


They are impermanent and relative, conditioned.

In what sense? And how does this differ from physical things?

Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).
In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)


can tell you how exactly burnt toenails smell like - sulphury -

But what if I don't know what "sulphury" is like? Then the information you give me is useless to me.


The idea that there is some form of knowledge which is not useful is, to me, an absurdity.

Oh, everything can be used for something! Question is, whether that thing, or knowledge, truly brings you happiness.


Moreover, this anti-philosophical attitude of not asking those three great questions solves nothing.

I disagree.
What answer to "Who am I?" or "Why do I exist?" can you offer that will not cause me suffering?


In fact, unlike other desires, the desire for knowledge of specific things -can- be satisfied by indulging it,

Really? If you consider that all empirical exploration is inherently relativistic and never completed -- then the results it renders are never truly satisfactory.


and one ought to seek knowledge as it is superior to ignorance.

Sure. But I am gladly ignorant of the colour of George Bush's socks or the half-time of Plutonium -- if I the time I would need to learn about those things, I can invest into finding what truly makes me happy.

But, humans are not all the same, so we have different pursuits.



The material world is real in the sense that it is something. But it is not real in the sense that it appears to be something it's not, it has no factual basis of it's own.

In what way does the material world have no factual basis on its own?

You can't actually prove (with the means of your mind) where the line between the material world and your mind is.
 
water said:
Prince_James,





I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?




Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).
In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)


....d is.

The trick with Reality is to SIMPLIFY, to complicate is the mind, thoughts.
Reality is EVERYTHING called dreamless-sleep, Samadhi.
Everything else is thoughts.
EXACTLY like in a sleep-dream, everything is just thoughts. So too when the mind dreams it wakes up in the morning -- everything is still Reality's Nothing, thoughts, fiction, words.

To complicate the subject any more is just thoughts, the mind.
 
Prince_James said:
Genep:

I have meditated and found no such thing. In fact, everytime I think, I am more and more convinced that there is an observer to the thoughts. Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum" is one of the most important declarations ever affirmed.

?

You have obviously made the same mistake physicists have made: instead of focusing on the quantum-gap they focus their attention on the thoughts, particles.

TO use meditation to study how the mind cannot work … you have to focus the attention/mind on the GAP – the UV-gap – between thoughts.
This UV-gap is “your observer” and the thoughts, called mind, cannot observe this UV-gap. (UV-gap, universe-vanishing-gap.)

When you focus the mind on the UV-gap between thoughts then sooner or later it will dawn on you “ what the hell is happening between these thoughts” … the more you try to figure out how thoughts are connected the funnier it gets because they cannot be connected.
It takes time … it took me years before I focused on the gap and not the thoughts …. and only then did the Gap turn into JOY and Laughter as the thoughts become more and more meaningless.
=-=

On all levels the mind thinks it thinks: I cannot prove to an ego in MY dream what to ME is not only SELF-evident but JOY and Laughter: the facade of ignorance is always knowledge.
IT HAS TO BE because, as physics tells us, the observer determines the observations.

When you can Accept that I am just a thought then we will be the same JOY and Laughter.

Until then entertain me with the wild-goose-chase ignorance needs to catch knowledge.
 
duendy said:
you see the danger of this believe, tis schism between an ideal of ' unchanging truth' and ever-changing Nature, which is compared with former as illusion/Maya, is that that 'unchanging truth' as it is imagined by the mind that invented this concept THEn claims that it is SUPERIOR to Nature. this is the main bane.
Plato had his non-changing world of forms, he was influenced by Orphism who separated stella world from Nature

For tis is where i believeit originatews. ie., the patriachal study of the heavens. theyt SSUMED the heavens where 'unchanging', due to their lck of technology and understanding of vast spans of time, they ssumed that the stella realms wwere unchanging in comparison with Eart where they wold see constant change.
Of course they are 'studying it'/'reason' and then equate their reasoning in studying itas the very same 'unchanging trusth' they are buidling up conceptually. next they fel superior, and are cut OFF from Nature ...and write this conceptual cosmology down in myth to make OTHERS feel cut off from Nature. For now they say to people that they are two parts, 'divine ie., unchanging truth' and 'Titanic'--ie., part of te Earth'...andthat their purpose is therefor to return to stella world, which is 'spiritual'-ie., NOT part of Nature, and everlastingly unchanging!
All based on a false metaphysical assumption, ad a FEAR OF NATURE AND CHANGE!

Actually, its the other way around. All that exists is the truth. It isn't imagined by the mind, but Krishna says it can only be percieved by the mind (or intellect). In actuality, it isn't separate from nature, as you are foolishly assuming, it only appears to be. According to Krishna, it is beyond the cause and effect of the material world, and in reality cause and effect don't exist, the cause is in the effect and vice-versa.

IT ISN'T A HEAVEN LIKE A MATERIAL PLACE. Where did you get this false idea? Krishna specifically says it is purely unmanifest. He also states that the intellect may percieve it to be many things, like the universe, a personal god, the absolute truth, the orgin of existence, etc...but it is really just one thing that the mind interprets to be many.

It isn't based on "fear of nature and change". That's got to be the most foolish assumption. According to Krishna, we should give up perception of seeing things as materially good and bad as you are doing, because good and bad really don't exist, and people who see things in this duality will constantly be bound to it. It is above the three material modes of nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). Krishna teaches be fearless, and not attached to anything or else there will be a "fear of nature and change" as you state.

What you are stating is actually the OPPOSITE of the philosophy.
 
Prince_James said:
VitalOne:
In what way does the material world have no factual basis on its own?
How can I explain this...think of a dream. Everything appears to be real, and appears to have a factual basis of it's own, but it doesn't. It's not based on anything it appears to be in the dream (the material dualities). In that same way, the material world has no factual basis of it's own.

Prince_James said:
How does change invalidate its existence? Only that which exists can change. Moreover, see my "Ontological-Epistemological Link" thread, as an argument for truth = existence.
Exactly, only that which physically exists can change (this is the essence of detachment from the material). However, it has no real truth in it. 1+1=2 is a true statement because 1+1 != 9 the next second or 19 in the other, get it? Like in a dream, there is really no truth to it. It is all based on something else, the origin of existence, the Supreme Absolute Truth.

Like I said, just as a dream, it does exist in that it is something, but in reality it is not anything.

The Supreme Absolute Truth, is all that really exists. Everything is based on it similar to the laws of physics, it does not change. Everything operates on the Supreme Absolute Truth, it is all that is.
 
water:

I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?

In most instances: Yes. In other instances: No. It depends on whether or not one considers the subconscious and unconscious to be formally different from the consciousness. If so, the consciousness is simply one-part of a tripartite conception of the mind, although the mind would be composed, yet again, of a lot more than simply "thoughts".

Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).

All things pass away, do they not?

In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)

The problem with the conception of sensory input and thoughts being one in the same, is that sensory input is external, thoughts are internal. Although I shall note that we perceive thoughts much in the same way we perceive sensory stimuli, and so in that way the view is valid.

But what if I don't know what "sulphury" is like? Then the information you give me is useless to me.

True, but then I shall bring you some brimstone. It's a weird smell.

Oh, everything can be used for something! Question is, whether that thing, or knowledge, truly brings you happiness.

What is happiness aside from power? What is knowledge aside from power?

I disagree.
What answer to "Who am I?" or "Why do I exist?" can you offer that will not cause me suffering?

"Who am I?" A person. "Why do I exist?" Because of causal relations linked back with the necessity of existence.

These ought to not cause one suffering.

Really? If you consider that all empirical exploration is inherently relativistic and never completed -- then the results it renders are never truly satisfactory.

On some levels, this is so. On other levels, it is not. I wish to see an apple,. I am giving one, and thus I am satisfied. If I want to see another apple, this iss simply another desire, although my prior desire has been satisfied.

Sure. But I am gladly ignorant of the colour of George Bush's socks or the half-time of Plutonium -- if I the time I would need to learn about those things, I can invest into finding what truly makes me happy.

But, humans are not all the same, so we have different pursuits.

Very true, we do. For I am quite interested in Bush's socks! ;) Black, most likely, by the way.

You can't actually prove (with the means of your mind) where the line between the material world and your mind is.

I must hurry up in my writing of my critique of Transcendental Idealism!

Genep:

You have obviously made the same mistake physicists have made: instead of focusing on the quantum-gap they focus their attention on the thoughts, particles.

Again, you use this meaningless term. What is "the quantum gap"? There are no references whatsoever to this notion on any website I have searched.

Also, by focusing on the "quantum gap" at the expense of particles, you make the opposite fallacy.

TO use meditation to study how the mind cannot work … you have to focus the attention/mind on the GAP – the UV-gap – between thoughts.
This UV-gap is “your observer” and the thoughts, called mind, cannot observe this UV-gap. (UV-gap, universe-vanishing-gap.)

Contradiction! You say to focus on the "UV gap", yet then say the mind cannot observe the UV gap. ONe cannot focus on what one cannot observe. Moreover, how do you even know the UV gap exists, then?

When you focus the mind on the UV-gap between thoughts then sooner or later it will dawn on you “ what the hell is happening between these thoughts” … the more you try to figure out how thoughts are connected the funnier it gets because they cannot be connected.

Everything I have been revealed in meditation and contemplation has refuted this notion. As noted: The more and more I think, the more connected my thoughts become. IN fact, I am even considering a wholely causal relation betwixt thoughts and reality in much the same way as physical causality.

It takes time … it took me years before I focused on the gap and not the thoughts …. and only then did the Gap turn into JOY and Laughter as the thoughts become more and more meaningless.

This may speak more of your mental condition than it does truth.

On all levels the mind thinks it thinks: I cannot prove to an ego in MY dream what to ME is not only SELF-evident but JOY and Laughter: the facade of ignorance is always knowledge.

Once again, you speak of the facade of ignorance as knowledge, yet you know it is a facade.

Moreover, your inability to prove your point discredits you wholely. You are more and more demonstrating that you are, in essence, an Orientalism Evangelist. You believe because you wish to believe, not because you have proof.

IT HAS TO BE because, as physics tells us, the observer determines the observations.

You know, here's another fallacy in your thought: You're trying to use knowledge to destroy knowledge. Think of the contradiction there.

By the way, as I have challeneged before: Recite to us, in depth, the Quantum Mechanical definition of observer?

When you can Accept that I am just a thought then we will be the same JOY and Laughter.

I cannot accept what isn't real.

VitalOne:

How can I explain this...think of a dream. Everything appears to be real, and appears to have a factual basis of it's own, but it doesn't. It's not based on anything it appears to be in the dream (the material dualities). In that same way, the material world has no factual basis of it's own.

How is it not?

Exactly, only that which physically exists can change (this is the essence of detachment from the material). However, it has no real truth in it. 1+1=2 is a true statement because 1+1 != 9 the next second or 19 in the other, get it? Like in a dream, there is really no truth to it. It is all based on something else, the origin of existence, the Supreme Absolute Truth.

What is this Supreme Absolute Truth of which you speak? Moreover, how is that which physically exists can change is "the essence of detachment from the material"? Also, you must realize, that it is only in physical existence where something cannot change, either. Nothingess is incapable of change or non-change, for it is nothing. Moreover, 1 + 1 = 2 is true not only because it wouldn't change in another moment, but because it is true. 1 + 1 = 2 must be so.

The Supreme Absolute Truth, is all that really exists. Everything is based on it similar to the laws of physics, it does not change. Everything operates on the Supreme Absolute Truth, it is all that is.

Tell me about this Supreme Absolute Truth. I am intrigued.
 
Prince_James said:
Moreover, 1 + 1 = 2 is true not only because it wouldn't change in another moment, but because it is true.

It's only true because we've made a system which says that it's true. It's only true for those who understand math. And it's not always true. The Trinity says that 1+1+1=1.

Tell me about this Supreme Absolute Truth. I am intrigued.

It's the present nothingness.
 
VitalOne said:
Actually, its the other way around. All that exists is the truth. It isn't imagined by the mind, but Krishna says it can only be percieved by the mind (or intellect). In actuality, it isn't separate from nature, as you are foolishly assuming, it only appears to be. According to Krishna, it is beyond the cause and effect of the material world, and in reality cause and effect don't exist, the cause is in the effect and vice-versa.

IT ISN'T A HEAVEN LIKE A MATERIAL PLACE. Where did you get this false idea? Krishna specifically says it is purely unmanifest. He also states that the intellect may percieve it to be many things, like the universe, a personal god, the absolute truth, the orgin of existence, etc...but it is really just one thing that the mind interprets to be many.

It isn't based on "fear of nature and change". That's got to be the most foolish assumption. According to Krishna, we should give up perception of seeing things as materially good and bad as you are doing, because good and bad really don't exist, and people who see things in this duality will constantly be bound to it. It is above the three material modes of nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). Krishna teaches be fearless, and not attached to anything or else there will be a "fear of nature and change" as you state.

What you are stating is actually the OPPOSITE of the philosophy.
Comediacally enough, i actually joined the Hare KrishnaTemple when 17!.....i had had very powerful LSD trips at the very tender age of 15, and at about 17 when i had had to retur home from a big city Loon, i was kind of high and dry. i had tried to live an alternative life and had gotten sucked into the system wit no support for what i'd experienced. one dayin town a Hare Krishna devotee hooked me howingme a ag with a picture of pic of Krishna playing his flute.it toght it looked rallytrippy and was attracted, i started reading books, visiting their Temple, ahd they seduced me to become a devotee. i travelled acros the British isles to Edinburugh in te middle of winter, ad sayed in a freezin cold temple and had teethchatering showers at 3.30 am before te first ritual singing and dacing in front of a doll of Krishman and his Consort, Radha....It lasted a week. my job had been washing thepots in cold water for the entire temple. it was a fukin madhouse..haha. i ran down a stree it a very tall German devoteechasing m. i managed to hitch on back of a motor bike back home. it tok two days and we stayed over at his friends. my legs were so numbs...they were likrubber and i could hardlywalk

so i know a bit abot Krishman. in1974 summer of, i went to the Hertfordshire temple which the Beatle George Harrison hadgiven the Movement and not only met their spiritual masster, Sril Praphupad, but also met and shook hands wit George Harrison who had come to visit him!
Completely left them soon after

so thats a story bout my spell with Krishna.

i find the sect very ascetic. is intereting ypu seem to emphasize 'intellect'. i really distrust belief systems of all kinds including our presnt secualr one which emphasize intellect. and denigrate emotions, feelings. for it is the latter freely felt and expressed which bring on communion between our being and Nature's being. intellect is just a tool. when it bcomes inflated there is great danger
 
c7ityi_ said:
It's only true because we've made a system which says that it's true. It's only true for those who understand math. And it's not always true. The Trinity says that 1+1+1=1.



It's the present nothingness.

Absolutely: the NOW is all there is. IT is the Supreme Truth. Everything else is BS, thoughts, the mind.

And without a devil there would be no need for a Trinity so the Trinity is 1+1+1+1 = 1; or 1+1+1 = 1-1; or any other combination good needs to be the facade of evil... because without evil, good/god would have no meaning.
 
Prince_James said:
water:



Genep:


Again, you use this meaningless term. What is "the quantum gap"? There are no references whatsoever to this notion on any website I have searched.


Tell me about this Supreme Absolute Truth. I am intrigued.

The Supreme Truth is that the quantum-gap is literally nothing. So physicists avoids it.

The Supreme Truth is that without this quantum-gap there would be no Periodic Table, there would be no elements, no metals and non-metals. THIS is SO BASIC that it isn’t even wisdom only High School Chemistry.

The Quantum-gap is NOTHING – and yet without it there can be no order in the universe, nor even disorder, because there would be no universe, or anything else that is made up of atoms that need the quantum-gap to exist.

That is the Supreme Truth directly from the quantum-gaps mouth – and everything else is just the BS that physics’ particles need to think they are more than just Reality’s fiction, thoughts.
 
re quantum-gap

Simple fact: There can be no change in the universe without particles going from one quantum-level to another. They have to do this by going through the quantum-gap in such a way that they can never enter it. (This is an utter impossibility unless particles are thoughts that can thus do anything.)

If particles could enter the quantum-gap then it could not work as a quantum-gap the universe needs to exist.

-- so figure it out

Hint: The Indus River sages of old called the quantum-gap Reality, Atman, Samadhi, and particles were Reality’s fiction, nothing, thoughts.
 
duendy said:
Comediacally enough, i actually joined the Hare KrishnaTemple when 17!.....i had had very powerful LSD trips at the very tender age of 15, and at about 17 when i had had to retur home from a big city Loon, i was kind of high and dry. i had tried to live an alternative life and had gotten sucked into the system wit no support for what i'd experienced. one dayin town a Hare Krishna devotee hooked me howingme a ag with a picture of pic of Krishna playing his flute.it toght it looked rallytrippy and was attracted, i started reading books, visiting their Temple, ahd they seduced me to become a devotee. i travelled acros the British isles to Edinburugh in te middle of winter, ad sayed in a freezin cold temple and had teethchatering showers at 3.30 am before te first ritual singing and dacing in front of a doll of Krishman and his Consort, Radha....It lasted a week. my job had been washing thepots in cold water for the entire temple. it was a fukin madhouse..haha. i ran down a stree it a very tall German devoteechasing m. i managed to hitch on back of a motor bike back home. it tok two days and we stayed over at his friends. my legs were so numbs...they were likrubber and i could hardlywalk

so i know a bit abot Krishman. in1974 summer of, i went to the Hertfordshire temple which the Beatle George Harrison hadgiven the Movement and not only met their spiritual masster, Sril Praphupad, but also met and shook hands wit George Harrison who had come to visit him!
Completely left them soon after

so thats a story bout my spell with Krishna.

i find the sect very ascetic. is intereting ypu seem to emphasize 'intellect'. i really distrust belief systems of all kinds including our presnt secualr one which emphasize intellect. and denigrate emotions, feelings. for it is the latter freely felt and expressed which bring on communion between our being and Nature's being. intellect is just a tool. when it bcomes inflated there is great danger
Uhm..Hare Krishna?? isn't that like a cult or something?

Anyway, I don't trust any cult, sect, church, or organization, I read actual scriptures - the primary source. You should try that. I've found the SB to be great at explaining the Vedanta. It explains the meaning of scriptures of other religions as well. People who join organizations and sects find a place to belong, that's what they want, a place to fit in. I mean, I bet that 90% of Church goers don't really know what the Bible even says. For instance, in the West people wouldn't ever think that the things Krishna says are much more "intellectual" than what Judeo-Christian scriptures say.

I think it is great that you distrust belief systems, this gives you an independant mind, to freely find the truth.

Also, I find it fascinating your last statments seem to be saying precisely what Krishna says.
 
Prince_James said:
VitalOne:
How is it not?
How is what not? How does a dream have no factual basis of it's own? Well, yesterday I had a dream about alligators who had some how come into the beach. In the dream, the world appears to have a factual basis of it's own, existing independantly. The dream is real in that it is something, yet in reality it is nothing because it has no real truth in it. Get it? The dream world has a beginning and end, so you should know it's not the ultimate reality. All while you are dreaming, the absolute truth, the ultimate reality is really the only thing that exists. In the same way, this applies to the material world.

"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products’ destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance" - (SB 11.28.19)

Prince_James said:
What is this Supreme Absolute Truth of which you speak? Moreover, how is that which physically exists can change is "the essence of detachment from the material"? Also, you must realize, that it is only in physical existence where something cannot change, either. Nothingess is incapable of change or non-change, for it is nothing. Moreover, 1 + 1 = 2 is true not only because it wouldn't change in another moment, but because it is true. 1 + 1 = 2 must be so.
The Supreme Absolute Truth is the ultimate reality, the origin of existence, all that actually exists. It is the only thing that really exists.

If someone attaches themselves to something material, then their happiness shall change just as the material world changes. You will experience constant ups and downs. However, if you detach from the material world, then your happiness can never be changed. You will be attaching yourself to the absolute reality, which is unchangable, and therefore you return to natural state of ecstasy.

The 1+1=2 thing is bad example. The idea is that anything that temporarily exists, does not truly exists at all. And this material world has a beginning and an end, so it cannot be the true reality.

"That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future also has no existence of its own for the period of its duration, but is only a superficial designation. In My opinion, whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing" - (SB 11.28.21)


Tell me about this Supreme Absolute Truth. I am intrigued.
It's the real truth. Its the thing behind everything else. The true reality, the origin of existence, always the same at all times, regardless of time, or the beginning, middle, or end of the material world. That's how Jesus can say, "I am alpha and omega" and how Krishna can say "I am the beginning, middle, and end".
 
c7ityi_:

It's only true because we've made a system which says that it's true. It's only true for those who understand math. And it's not always true. The Trinity says that 1+1+1=1.

The trinity is a made up concept by idiots who correspond philosophy to established dogma, not dogma to philosophy. This is the fallacy of Christian - and all religious - thought: The presumption that ANYTHING can be above reason and that reason can be surordinate to anything.

Also, what the mathematical statement is referencing - reality - is true for all.

It's the present nothingness.

Contradiction of terms. Nothingness cannot be present.

Genep:

Absolutely: the NOW is all there is. IT is the Supreme Truth. Everything else is BS, thoughts, the mind.

So now "the Now" has ontological significance, when previously all was nothingness.

The Supreme Truth is that the quantum-gap is literally nothing. So physicists avoids it.

So you've made up a word and call it "quantum" to sound scientific.

Charlatan.

The Supreme Truth is that without this quantum-gap there would be no Periodic Table, there would be no elements, no metals and non-metals. THIS is SO BASIC that it isn’t even wisdom only High School Chemistry.

Then please, explain it, o sage. SPecifically reference known and mainstream scientific figures, specifically famed ones of the present and past.

The Quantum-gap is NOTHING – and yet without it there can be no order in the universe, nor even disorder, because there would be no universe, or anything else that is made up of atoms that need the quantum-gap to exist.

Your logic is utterly flawed. Nothing cannot possibly impact something in anyway whatsoever. By being nothing, it cannot impact a thing. When one throws nothing at something, one has not even thrown something.

Simple fact: There can be no change in the universe without particles going from one quantum-level to another. They have to do this by going through the quantum-gap in such a way that they can never enter it. (This is an utter impossibility unless particles are thoughts that can thus do anything.)

Define "quantum level". I am pretty sure this is another made up term you use to sound scientific.

Hey, out of curiousity: Do you know what the term quantum even -means-? The actual word? Could you even tell me where it comes from and why it is used?

Hint: The Indus River sages of old called the quantum-gap Reality, Atman, Samadhi, and particles were Reality’s fiction, nothing, thoughts.

The Indus River Sages were dirty fools who thought that sitting around and blanking their thoughts was going to give them a non-existent enlightenment. They were rejectors of reality because they were miserable.

VitalOne:

How is what not? How does a dream have no factual basis of it's own? Well, yesterday I had a dream about alligators who had some how come into the beach. In the dream, the world appears to have a factual basis of it's own, existing independantly. The dream is real in that it is something, yet in reality it is nothing because it has no real truth in it. Get it? The dream world has a beginning and end, so you should know it's not the ultimate reality. All while you are dreaming, the absolute truth, the ultimate reality is really the only thing that exists. In the same way, this applies to the material world.

How does this correspond to the real world? In what way does the real world have this dreamlike quality? In what way is it not based on the material dualities?

"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products’ destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance" - (SB 11.28.19)

Actually, this does not consider relation, which is a fundemental flaw. Relation produces things which do not exist beforehand. The gold in a golden ring is organized in such a way as to not be simply gold, but gold + relation, therefore meaning that the destruction of the ring is a destruction of relation, also.

The Supreme Absolute Truth is the ultimate reality, the origin of existence, all that actually exists. It is the only thing that really exists.

THis doesn't explain much. Might you elaborate on how you have come to perceive this "Supreme Absolute Truth"? What is your argument for it? What is your proof?

If someone attaches themselves to something material, then their happiness shall change just as the material world changes. You will experience constant ups and downs. However, if you detach from the material world, then your happiness can never be changed. You will be attaching yourself to the absolute reality, which is unchangable, and therefore you return to natural state of ecstasy.

If one detaches from the material world - all there is - then one cannot feel happiness nor sadness, as one has sought annihilation. Pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, are intertwined, but to be free of both is to have neither. Moreover, ecstasy is simply pleasure, and as such, if the material world is ethemeral and with pleasure and pain, the absolute reality - which must also be material - must also have sorrow as its counterpart to ecstasy.

The 1+1=2 thing is bad example. The idea is that anything that temporarily exists, does not truly exists at all. And this material world has a beginning and an end, so it cannot be the true reality.

Yet that is a fallacious way of thinking. If something temporarily exist it exists whilst it exists and ceases to exist when it does not, it doesn't "not exist all together". In fact, it exists as potentiality after and before its emergence, as a part of the necessarily temporality of the mid-point betwixt the extremes of Nothingness and Somethingness.

"That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future also has no existence of its own for the period of its duration, but is only a superficial designation. In My opinion, whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing" - (SB 11.28.21)

The problem with this stance is as noted above. Whilst I shan't argue that something which is eternal, immutable, omnipresent, and infinite is perfect in its quality of existence, the ethmeral aspects of the normal world are no less real for the time they exist, and energy - which is present everywhere and composes everything - shares in the eternity of this existence.

It's the real truth. Its the thing behind everything else. The true reality, the origin of existence, always the same at all times, regardless of time, or the beginning, middle, or end of the material world. That's how Jesus can say, "I am alpha and omega" and how Krishna can say "I am the beginning, middle, and end".

As I have asked before in this post: Please present your proof and reasoning for such a truth, as well as a full description.
 
The differernce between...
a 'materialist' stating
King James (congratulations!) said:
This is the fallacy of Christian - and all religious - thought: The presumption that ANYTHING can be above reason and that reason can be surordinate to anything.
and a Xtian stating;
This is the fallacy of (Materialists) - and all (materialist) - thought: The presumption that anything can be above REASON and that REASON can be subordinate to anything.
is?
Ironic?
*__-
 
water said:
Prince_James,
Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).
In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)

A million thoughts come floating by,
Which one I wonder should I try,
This one or that one or maybe two or three,
hmmmmm...I don't know....
I guess what ever means
the most to me.....

QQ​
 
genep,



The trick with Reality is to SIMPLIFY, to complicate is the mind, thoughts.

I agree. But unless one has some experience with meditation, one will likely think that to simplify means to generalize -- which can be a fatal mistake.
So it is advisable to be careful with these terms.


Until then entertain me with the wild-goose-chase ignorance needs to catch knowledge.

:)


* * *


Prince_James,



I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?

In most instances: Yes. In other instances: No. It depends on whether or not one considers the subconscious and unconscious to be formally different from the consciousness. If so, the consciousness is simply one-part of a tripartite conception of the mind, although the mind would be composed, yet again, of a lot more than simply "thoughts".

We have a word for "consciousness", but we don't have a word like "mind".
The matter seems plain in my native language, but somewhat odd in English.


Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).

All things pass away, do they not?

Hence they are insubstantial. Q.E.D.


But what if I don't know what "sulphury" is like? Then the information you give me is useless to me.

True, but then I shall bring you some brimstone. It's a weird smell.

But how will you ensure that I will believe you?! What will you do to make me believe that that thing you are having me smell is called "brimstone"?


Oh, everything can be used for something! Question is, whether that thing, or knowledge, truly brings you happiness.

What is happiness aside from power? What is knowledge aside from power?

What kind of power, or, power over what?


"Who am I?" A person. "Why do I exist?" Because of causal relations linked back with the necessity of existence.

These ought to not cause one suffering.

Well, maybe they don't cause you suffering, but they cause me suffering: What is a person? Why is existence a necessity? And so on. Endless questions.



As for the meditation problem:
There are some practical considerations to keep in mind.
If you are a beginner, and sit down to meditate and you have the intention to come to great insights -- it most likely won't work. There may be some short term benefits, some relaxation, but that's all.
If you want a good meditation practice, you have to create the causes and conditions for meditation; and this means that you have to live a virtuous life, and deal with all the things from that trouble you, or your mind will still be buzzing around as you sit on your cushion.

All in all, if you want to get good results with your meditation, you have to be crazy about your meditation. You have to be truly devoted to your practice. Meditation isn't something one would neatly add to one's daily activities, it doesn't work that way.

There is a lot to be said about meditation, and I think it is advisable you seek more information at a Buddhist centre, New York should have some. There, you can speak to someone in person and they will explain things to you and answer your questions competently.


Everything I have been revealed in meditation and contemplation has refuted this notion. As noted: The more and more I think, the more connected my thoughts become. IN fact, I am even considering a wholely causal relation betwixt thoughts and reality in much the same way as physical causality.

... yesssss ... It's an ancient notion that our minds work like mirrors -- adequately mirroring reality. If that were so, there would be no disagreements and we would all understand everything. Or, some people were deluded, but some were not. But if we're all deluded, we can't say to what extent we are deluded, or who is more deluded.
 
Prince_James said:
VitalOne:
How does this correspond to the real world? In what way does the real world have this dreamlike quality? In what way is it not based on the material dualities?
Uhm..have you ever heard of the observer effect? To sum it up for you "In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once".

Things only exists while we OBSERVE them, otherwise, everything is happening at all once.

Actually, this does not consider relation, which is a fundemental flaw. Relation produces things which do not exist beforehand. The gold in a golden ring is organized in such a way as to not be simply gold, but gold + relation, therefore meaning that the destruction of the ring is a destruction of relation, also.
Let us use the Gold analogy again. Lets say the absolute truth is the Gold. Everything, including your thoughts, matter, light, etc...are all made of the Gold, yet they appear different. In actuality, everything is the Gold. The "relation" is an illusion. All that really exists is really the Gold only. Just as how when Gold is rearranged into a gold ring, gold sword, or gold necklace, the gold still exists eternally the same. On an atomic level, there is only the gold and ONLY the gold has been existing the entire time.


If one detaches from the material world - all there is - then one cannot feel happiness nor sadness, as one has sought annihilation. Pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, are intertwined, but to be free of both is to have neither. Moreover, ecstasy is simply pleasure, and as such, if the material world is ethemeral and with pleasure and pain, the absolute reality - which must also be material - must also have sorrow as its counterpart to ecstasy.
Where do you get the idea that only the material world exists? Scientists don't even know what consciousness really IS. The world does not exist independant of an observer. Also, if you have ever experienced detachment, you would know it is like relaxation, neither high nor low.

You are thinking in a classical manner, the way things appear to be.

Whether you consciously realize it or not, you are searching for happiness, eternal happiness. Everyone unconsciously desires happiness, when someone does something they like doing it's because that gives them happiness. The reason we have negative thoughts and behavior is because we unconsciously believe this will bring us happiness.

Yet that is a fallacious way of thinking. If something temporarily exist it exists whilst it exists and ceases to exist when it does not, it doesn't "not exist all together". In fact, it exists as potentiality after and before its emergence, as a part of the necessarily temporality of the mid-point betwixt the extremes of Nothingness and Somethingness.
No, this is incorrect.

As I've stated, reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect),

"In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once."

In reality, when there is no observer everything IS existing all together. Krishna is correct when he asserts that things ultimately have no independant existence of their own, and that which temporarily exists, does not really exists at all.

"My dear Uddhava, the material body and mind, composed of the three modes of material nature, attach themselves to you, but they are actually illusion, since they appear only at the present, having no original or ultimate existence" (SB 11.19.7)

As I have asked before in this post: Please present your proof and reasoning for such a truth, as well as a full description.
Ok, I'll use the Gold analogy, because it's easy to understand. Let's assume, the Supreme Absolute Truth is Gold, and lets assume that everything that exists is made up of this Gold. In reality, only the Gold exists, it is the origin of existence, smaller than the smallest, yet, all pervading and greater than the greatest. The maya or illusion is the Gold appearing to be completely different, in different forms. In the beginning all that existed was the gold, and in the end all that exists is the gold, and all that exists throughout time is only the gold.
 
Water:

We have a word for "consciousness", but we don't have a word like "mind".
The matter seems plain in my native language, but somewhat odd in English.

Do you? Perhaps then "mind" in Slovene really is just the "thought" aspect of the English mind? An improper simplification in the translation?

Hence they are insubstantial. Q.E.D.

Only in the sense that they are "flimsy", as the dictionary would say. They are not unreal. They are just as real as something which is eternal, yet their reality is part of the temporality which is addressed in the subset of my argument for God, under "The Problem of Temporality and Transcience".

But how will you ensure that I will believe you?! What will you do to make me believe that that thing you are having me smell is called "brimstone"?

I could likely convince you through consensus of several other people, specifically strangers. Naturally, you could disbelieve, and thus would be your progative.

What kind of power, or, power over what?

Power over anything. Power over oneself, power over existence, power over one's urges, power over one's "curiousity".

Well, maybe they don't cause you suffering, but they cause me suffering: What is a person? Why is existence a necessity? And so on. Endless questions.

Actually, I can present an argument for why existence is a necessity which isn't an endless question. And I can also probably define a person pretty well.

As for the meditation problem:
There are some practical considerations to keep in mind.
If you are a beginner, and sit down to meditate and you have the intention to come to great insights -- it most likely won't work. There may be some short term benefits, some relaxation, but that's all.
If you want a good meditation practice, you have to create the causes and conditions for meditation; and this means that you have to live a virtuous life, and deal with all the things from that trouble you, or your mind will still be buzzing around as you sit on your cushion.

What does a virtuous life entail?

All in all, if you want to get good results with your meditation, you have to be crazy about your meditation. You have to be truly devoted to your practice. Meditation isn't something one would neatly add to one's daily activities, it doesn't work that way.

There is a lot to be said about meditation, and I think it is advisable you seek more information at a Buddhist centre, New York should have some. There, you can speak to someone in person and they will explain things to you and answer your questions competently.

I'll consider it, but as I have said to you in private discourse, I am neither very interested, nor has my experience - for much of my life, if I did not note - provide me with anything. I don't see an inherent worth in silencing my mind. I prefer the buzz of thoughts to silence. Thoughts give me what I want: Wisdom.

... yesssss ... It's an ancient notion that our minds work like mirrors -- adequately mirroring reality. If that were so, there would be no disagreements and we would all understand everything. Or, some people were deluded, but some were not. But if we're all deluded, we can't say to what extent we are deluded, or who is more deluded.

Why we do not understand everything is quite simple: We take things for granted. The unphilosophic mind is like someone with farsightedness: They can see something far away beautifully, but can hardly see anything placed right before them.

VitalOne:

Uhm..have you ever heard of the observer effect? To sum it up for you "In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once".

Just out of curiousity to assure you know what you are speaking of - and since I have also challenged Genep on this, please tell me the answer to this in PM - what is the definition of a Quantum Observer?

But anyway: This is only true, by the way, in some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Also, it is related to the fact that we are ignorant of many things before observation, not so much that it actually exists in superposition. Schrodinger's Cat is either dead or it is not, our ignorance of its state does not matter.

Things only exists while we OBSERVE them, otherwise, everything is happening at all once.

If you know what the Quantum observer is, you'll know this isn't so.

Let us use the Gold analogy again. Lets say the absolute truth is the Gold. Everything, including your thoughts, matter, light, etc...are all made of the Gold, yet they appear different. In actuality, everything is the Gold. The "relation" is an illusion. All that really exists is really the Gold only. Just as how when Gold is rearranged into a gold ring, gold sword, or gold necklace, the gold still exists eternally the same. On an atomic level, there is only the gold and ONLY the gold has been existing the entire time.

I call this the Fallacy of Atomism. That somehow the macroscopic is not as real as the microscopic or the foundation-of-all-things, simply because the macroscopic is composed of things. Relation refutes this notion, for one cannot, actually, reduce things to their parts alone. Here's a riddle for you:

You have three piles of gold dust.

Two piles of gold dust you take to make a ring and a necklace respectively.

Where is the "ringhood", the "pile of gold dust hood", and "the necklace hood" of each pile? Even if they are all made of gold, why can they be made into different things?

Where do you get the idea that only the material world exists? Scientists don't even know what consciousness really IS. The world does not exist independant of an observer. Also, if you have ever experienced detachment, you would know it is like relaxation, neither high nor low.

Consider a recent argument I made for infinity. I believe it is in the last page of the "What is Matter?" thing. It is in one of my responses to Mosheh Therizon. Go look there and if you can't find it, tell me, and I'll just repost.

And it is perfectly fine to feel non-attachment and feel nothing whatsoever. But my choice has and shall be until otherwise, to feel the flux. I prefer to have my joy and my sorrow. I'd rather not be dead to all things.

Whether you consciously realize it or not, you are searching for happiness, eternal happiness. Everyone unconsciously desires happiness, when someone does something they like doing it's because that gives them happiness. The reason we have negative thoughts and behavior is because we unconsciously believe this will bring us happiness.

I agree. But happiness cannot be found in non-attachment, only numbness.

In reality, when there is no observer everything IS existing all together. Krishna is correct when he asserts that things ultimately have no independant existence of their own, and that which temporarily exists, does not really exists at all.

I'll respond to this line of thought more in depth when you explain to me, in PM, what the observer is. Moreover, again: Remember that Quantum Physics has many different interpretations. There are some, like Multiple-Worlds Theory, which postulate -hyper realness- to all superpositions, in the litteral creation of alternate universes.

Also, something which has no "existence on its own" still remains real. Something which has -any- existence must be real.

"My dear Uddhava, the material body and mind, composed of the three modes of material nature, attach themselves to you, but they are actually illusion, since they appear only at the present, having no original or ultimate existence" (SB 11.19.7)

Again: Fallacious line of thought. It is part of the Fallacy of Atomism. It also does not take into consideration how the temporal could arise from the eternal and have its temporary existence, and ontop of that, does not take into consideration that infinity must be composed of the temporal things, as must eternity.

Ok, I'll use the Gold analogy, because it's easy to understand. Let's assume, the Supreme Absolute Truth is Gold, and lets assume that everything that exists is made up of this Gold. In reality, only the Gold exists, it is the origin of existence, smaller than the smallest, yet, all pervading and greater than the greatest. The maya or illusion is the Gold appearing to be completely different, in different forms. In the beginning all that existed was the gold, and in the end all that exists is the gold, and all that exists throughout time is only the gold.

See my response to such above.
 
Prince_James,



Do you? Perhaps then "mind" in Slovene really is just the "thought" aspect of the English mind?

It seems so.


An improper simplification in the translation?

Hardly. Many words are simply intranslatable. A language conceptualizes the world in one way, and another language conceptualizes the world in another way. These two ways rarely match. Few words translate 1:1.


But how will you ensure that I will believe you?! What will you do to make me believe that that thing you are having me smell is called "brimstone"?

I could likely convince you through consensus of several other people, specifically strangers. Naturally, you could disbelieve, and thus would be your progative.

See, there is no way to ensure people will think the same way. If we are to be economical with our time and energy, it is therefore advisable to not pursue that everyone think the same way.


Power over anything. Power over oneself, power over existence, power over one's urges, power over one's "curiousity".

Oh joj.
luge.gif



Actually, I can present an argument for why existence is a necessity which isn't an endless question. And I can also probably define a person pretty well.

And I can always ask more questions!
s46.gif



What does a virtuous life entail?

For example, according to Buddhism, holding the precepts.


I'll consider it, but as I have said to you in private discourse, I am neither very interested, nor has my experience - for much of my life, if I did not note - provide me with anything. I don't see an inherent worth in silencing my mind. I prefer the buzz of thoughts to silence. Thoughts give me what I want: Wisdom.

Thoughts don't give wisdom, James.
 
Back
Top