Would a TEP be concerned about the enlightenment of others?

[sschaula]

Trevor,

Indeed, there is an influence there, but you were making unconsciousness seem to completely overshadow consciousness. Doesn't the conscious mind also have influence on the unconscious mind?

I don't it does. It's more like a puppet to the unconscious - the puppeteer.

You're welcome to disagree.

I'm trying to decide whether or not you are deliberately making enlightenment impossible by adding extra conditions.

What would be my intention if that were the case? An unconscious attempt to quit philosophy and be with Ms Right? That's a fucking joke. Assuming I'm not aware of what I'm doing here is a great insult to me. Assuming that I let my cock control me is an insult. Assuming that I believe philosophy is quittable - that's just plain stupid.

I'm not deliberately making enlightenment impossible by adding extra conditions. If you look back to before I took my short break from the forum, you'll see that I came upon these conditions as a seeker. I was eager for truth and understanding. I wanted to know the true meaning of the term, enlightenment. There's no sinister intent in my definition of enlightenment.

If you don't want to share that definition, then that's fine. You can have your definition and I can have mine. We can both believe we're right and that the other is off.

I would call someone whose consciousness was free of all delusions enlightened, but you want to extend this throughout his entire unconscious, which both of us, and apparently David, are in agreement is utterly impossible.

If it's not extended throughout his entire unconscious, then in my opinion it can't be said delusion is erradicated. Who that person is, isn't simply their conscious mind. How can it be said THEY are enlightened when they simply know something. Isn't there a difference between knowledge and wisdom? Isn't this enlightenment supposed to be experiential, and not just something we remember?

I'm not really trying to convince you, in order to convince myself. I'm fully convinced that the enlightenment David is presenting here is bull, having "attained" that myself. That point could be debatable to some people, but I'm not going to waste my time with anything like that, so anyone reading this feeling feisty...save your breath. I won't respond. I have only continued writing to you because you've been level headed, and I think you're capable of finding the truth on this topic.

Enlightenment is different than God-hood. I see it as a possible and helpful achievement: the perfection of wisdom through elimination of delusional thoughts.

I don't see how the wisdom is perfect without getting rid of ALL delusion, even unconscious delusions which influence our actions and reactions. I would call that imperfect wisdom...but that's just me.

This is just semantics anyway. We both seem to agree on how things work. It's just that I define one thing a different way than you.

I think that there is more truth to what David said in his last sentence than you are willing to face. You are trying to define enlightenment as the impossible step after enlightenment -- the total diffusion into nothingness (Nirvana?) -- so there will be no guilt when you say enlightenment is impossible. But you are not really saying enlightenment is impossible: you are, instead, agreeing that enlightenment is as far as we can go but refusing to use the word "enlightenment" to describe that point.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm glad someone else can see it, and communicate it back to me sensibly. Thank you for that.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

What would be my intention if that were the case? An unconscious attempt to quit philosophy and be with Ms Right?

I have no idea. The Miss Right thing might have been far-fetched, but the idea of unconsciously getting away from philosophy might be close to the truth.

You frequently imply that you cannot unlearn these things that you know, which is a good point. But that does not mean you don't try anyway. Philosophy will be with you for life. I see no reason not to try to be the best philosopher you can. Perhaps that is even what you are doing by rejecting the moderators so harshly -- you've outgrown their instruction. Perhaps it is time to find a vessel for your own teachings: create your own forum, write a book, converse in coffee shops, etc.

Or simply live in solitude, thinking.

Genius does not herd together well.

I don't [consciousness] does [influence the unconscious mind]. It's more like a puppet to the unconscious - the puppeteer.

My disagreement is that when we think of something consciously, there can be deliberation that can go in unexpected directions. For instance, when I perform a formal deduction (with premises and a conclusion), I am sure that my consciousness far outshines my unconsciousness in this regard, and will discover things that my unconsciousness would be incapable of doing on its own. Then I can follow these deductions and alter my life accordingly.

In other senses, my consciousness may be a puppet (for instance, why I was performing the deduction in the first place), but I think that things done consciously, after deliberation, can affect the whole organism.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm glad someone else can see it, and communicate it back to me sensibly. Thank you for that.

You're welcome. Until this discussion, I had not even considered using the word "Nirvana" for anything, but it's grown on me quickly. I think I'll continue to use the word to describe what you were calling enlightenment.

You may be right that you have achieved enlightenment ("in David's sense") if you have had coherent thoughts of Nirvana, and can describe it accurately.

[sschaula]

Trevor,

I have no idea. The Miss Right thing might have been far-fetched, but the idea of unconsciously getting away from philosophy might be close to the truth.

It could be.

You frequently imply that you cannot unlearn these things that you know, which is a good point. But that does not mean you don't try anyway.

I don't think I try to quit philosophy.

Philosophy will be with you for life. I see no reason not to try to be the best philosopher you can. Perhaps that is even what you are doing by rejecting the moderators so harshly -- you've outgrown their instruction.

I don't look at it that way. The way I look at it is that I've seen through something they haven't.

Perhaps it is time to find a vessel for your own teachings: create your own forum, write a book, converse in coffee shops, etc.

Or simply live in solitude, thinking.

Genius does not herd together well.

It's kind of funny to think about what I will do with myself. What a deluded way to think.

But what I will choose to do is not teach. I look at it like the mountain idea in some forms of Zen. It's just that I've walked up a mountain and down, and now I see no reason to lead people up.

I will also choose to not live in solitude. I'm not seeking anything anymore, so what would the purpose be? It's healthier to be around other people anyway.

My disagreement is that when we think of something consciously, there can be deliberation that can go in unexpected directions. For instance, when I perform a formal deduction (with premises and a conclusion), I am sure that my consciousness far outshines my unconsciousness in this regard, and will discover things that my unconsciousness would be incapable of doing on its own. Then I can follow these deductions and alter my life accordingly.

I totally agree with you there. That's why I say some things we can know and believe are true...it's why I don't say "nothing is true". Logic isn't corrupted by anything.

In other senses, my consciousness may be a puppet (for instance, why I was performing the deduction in the first place), but I think that things done consciously, after deliberation, can affect the whole organism.

I agree with you.

You're welcome. Until this discussion, I had not even considered using the word "Nirvana" for anything, but it's grown on me quickly. I think I'll continue to use the word to describe what you were calling enlightenment.

My only question is this: isn't an enlightened person, a Buddha, supposed to have reached or attained Nirvana? Maybe that was a misinterpretation of Buddhism on my part.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott:

S: The way we see and hear things is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear. It's not based on reality.

L:
1. What we see and hear is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear.
2. Reality is not and cannot be seen or heard with the eyes and ears respectively.
3. Thus, what we see and hear is not based on reality.

S: Not exactly. What we see and hear is based on reality, but is not reality.

God, I was just having this argument with Cory not so long ago!

It's like if you see a penny laying on the ground, the penny being reality: you only see one side. There is another side but due to your point of view, it remains hidden.

Have you ever learned about how the human eye works? It's pretty interesting. You will see what I mean.

Did you know X rays, gamma rays, UV light, infrared, etc...are all light? But we only see the visible spectrum.

When you look at an orange and percieve it to be that color, is it really that color? Do colors really exist, or is something causing them to appear?

The idea “we only see the visible spectrum” is both logically sound and cannot be falsified empirically since, for one, it would be both logically contradictory and empirically false to say one can see that which is not visible. But, occasionally, we get colour blind individuals who do not see the entire spectrum. Does this consequently falsify “we only see the visible spectrum”? Colour blindness notwithstanding, the fellow still only sees the visible spectrum, minus a shade or two here and there.

And then there’s the blind man...

What does that tell us about the nature of reality and empiricism?

Is the reality a blind man physically experiences based on a different reality to the one a deaf one experiences, or one with both sight and hearing? Is it a different reality to that of a bat, a spider or a fish?

Did I say that?

Yes. :)

L: 4a. By the word “our” it is implied that there are other frames of reference but no comparative analysis is provided, probably for obvious, logical reasons.

S: That's right. Have you ever seen the world through another beings POV? Me either. How could I possibly compare my POV to another POV when I know of nothing but my own?

All I know, by inference, is that mine is flawed.

I will never see the world from another (being’s?) person's eyes, but I can certainly understand a viewpoint with logic, at which point that viewpoint becomes a part of me.

S: (1) Our frame of reference is human and story based. [ugh, straight out of the sterile definition of postmodernism] Things are given meaning. Things don't come with meaning. They don't exist as we percieve them...as our eyes see and our ears hear them.

L:
5. Being subjective, humans give things meaning.
6. No thing has inherent meaning, since the only meaning a thing can have is that meaning given by humans.

S: What is the difference between a clown and a tugboat, to a rock?

Is this a trick question? If I am to assume that things don’t exist as we perceive them (as you stated above) then my answer has to be: fucked if I know!

L: 7. Therefore, the act of giving meaning to things and seeing and hearing them with our eyes and ears is proof that things don’t exist as we perceive them.

S: Wrong. We could perceive things correctly, and still apply our own meaning.

OK. So, given your statement above about things not existing as we perceive them, how do we now arrive at the possibility of being able to perceive things correctly?

More later, except for this one thing:

That was all one sentence!

[laughs] So it was. That’s Matt’s fault for bringing out Kant whom, you might’ve noticed, I’ve left on the table since tackling him is more like digesting meat and gravy, whereas tackling you is more like eating Crepes Suzette; both ultimately nutritious, of course.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

The idea “we only see the visible spectrum” is both logically sound and cannot be falsified empirically since, for one, it would be both logically contradictory and empirically false to say one can see that which is not visible.

No. The term "the visible spectrum" isn't necessarily a true term, it's just true for most people. Some animals percieve UV light rays. I wouldn't doubt that some people could see outside of the spectrum, although I've never heard of it.

But, occasionally, we get colour blind individuals who do not see the entire spectrum. Does this consequently falsify “we only see the visible spectrum”?

No. If they only see a part of the visible spectrum, they still only see the visible spectrum and not anything outside of it.

Colour blindness notwithstanding, the fellow still only sees the visible spectrum, minus a shade or two here and there.

And then there’s the blind man...

What does that tell us about the nature of reality and empiricism?

That our viewpoint is highly limited.

Is the reality a blind man physically experiences based on a different reality to the one a deaf one experiences, or one with both sight and hearing? Is it a different reality to that of a bat, a spider or a fish?

Nope. It's the same reality, but all different viewpoints.

Yes. :)

Sorry I'm too busy to look back at what this was about.

I will never see the world from another (being’s?) person's eyes, but I can certainly understand a viewpoint with logic, at which point that viewpoint becomes a part of me.

What if someone else saw a different color from orange, but they still called it orange? You'd have no idea about how they viewed the world.

Is this a trick question? If I am to assume that things don’t exist as we perceive them (as you stated above) then my answer has to be: fucked if I know!

It wasn't a trick question. You got the answer exactly right.

OK. So, given your statement above about things not existing as we perceive them, how do we now arrive at the possibility of being able to perceive things correctly?

We can't possibly be able to perceive things correctly. That was my point.

[laughs] So it was. That’s Matt’s fault for bringing out Kant whom, you might’ve noticed, I’ve left on the table since tackling him is more like digesting meat and gravy, whereas tackling you is more like eating Crepes Suzette; both ultimately nutritious, of course.

So you're saying Kant is kind of boring and filling, and that I'm tasty and you always want more of me?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

But what I will choose to do is not teach. I look at it like the mountain idea in some forms of Zen. It's just that I've walked up a mountain and down, and now I see no reason to lead people up.

I will also choose to not live in solitude. I'm not seeking anything anymore, so what would the purpose be? It's healthier to be around other people anyway.

The best of luck to you, then.

My only question is this: isn't an enlightened person, a Buddha, supposed to have reached or attained Nirvana? Maybe that was a misinterpretation of Buddhism on my part.

Using the definitions here, an enlightened person would see Nirvana, but would not live in it. I have no idea what the Buddhists believe. Given the nature of religion, it is likely less logical than this.

I think I'll start a thread.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You” is as true as the color “Orange”, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….

Now that is definitely a clear elaboration on Dan’s relatively recent declaration that “causality is a fiction.” You know, the one that sent Cory for a six on the subject of Emptiness and the existence of mountains.

I reckon that’s James’ problem. His limited scientific (and, therefore, philosophically inept) mind imagines causality to be an independent force: God, reduced from the totality to an all-pervasive dual force to the exclusion of its manifestation on all other wavelengths.

Well said.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott, I'll have you know I think roast dinners are far from boring. One of my favourites, actually.

However, since I also enjoy dessert, often I will eat it first. Otherwise I might not have room enough for it at all after as good a meal as a roast with plenty of gravy and steamed veges!

Generally speaking, whilst dessert may be rather rich it comes in lighter, smaller portions than the main.

.

[Sapius]

Sapius,

Frankly, I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour actually. Dan does really come up with some very brilliant jests, full of wise advices. :D

In your opinion. I just think he's a smartass.

However, I started with this because this alone tells me that I can safely ignore you then, but I am still willing to go along since I see that some of your recent posts kind of clarify your thinking, not that I agree to them though.

You couldn't safely ignore me before? I don't get what you're saying here.

Then why are you doing just that with the rest of the world, my friend?

Why am I talking about enlightenment? To clarify that such a thing doesn't exist outside of fairy tales, and is impossible. I don't get what you're actually asking here though. Maybe you were asking about something else I'm doing with the rest of the world? Please be clear.

According to your core understandings, even your protest against enlightenment (as defined by others or yourself), IS essentially delusional, isn’t it?

No, that's according to your misunderstanding of things I've said.

I have no real problem either, but your definition of ‘a person with no delusion’ emerges out of and from delusion itself, because according to your understandings absolutely all is delusion, including an UNDERSTANDING that it is indeed a delusion.

Please don't say "according to your understandings" when you don't understand my understandings.

Other than that, I don't know what you're saying. My definition of "a person with no delusion" emerges out of delusion? Absolutely all is delusion? When have I said these things? You're just misinterpreting me.

I don’t know about naming it differently, I'm not good at that, but you could make up a new word to describe that since it does not conform to the conventionally accepted meaning of enlightenment, and the dictionary is open to being updated on a regular basis. You could always call it a realized awareness or the likes.

Haha, realized awareness? That's even worse than the word enlightenment itself.

How about this...when someone believes in and knows the truth, they are considered a philosopher. When someone has eliminated all non truth from their awareness, they are considered enlightened.

Why isn’t the thought that ‘its illusory or a mirage’ not reality?

Nothing is not reality, except for things which don't exist.

Humbug! That is, according to your own claims that utterly every thing or though is utterly deluded-ness.

Show me where I claimed that. I may have made a mistake, and actually said something close to that. I don't claim to be perfect.

Thanks for the advice, but you need not worry about someone that does not exist. BTW, isn’t “thinking” an act of delusion itself?

I don't need to remind myself of the truth when I live and believe in a mirage, and when there's no escape from it.

It may be true that people are simply made up of atoms, but I don't view the world that way. I'm not going to sit here and repeat to myself, "Sapius is nothing but atoms". So yeah, maybe I don't NEED to believe in someone that doesn't exist, but I am going to. I have no choice. I am deluded.

Thinking is an act of delusion when it spawns from the delusion of selfhood. But that doesn't make the truths you find through reasoning to be any less true.

So you believe in an inherent self. Why didn’t you say so earlier?

I have been saying that sort of thing the whole time! You know, "enlightenment is impossible", "I am deluded" etc...

Have you achieved that? Do live by that?

Obviously not. If someone did, they would most likely die of dehydration within a couple of days, unless someone were to help them out.

Haven't I been saying enlightenment is impossible?


May be it is hard to explain because as you already mentioned that actually there is no other “point of view” than the one you already have, but since it fancies one to imagine that the “true core” is something else other than what you already are, hence the thought to change the core in the first place. Is it not possible that the core is trying to change its core?

This gives me a pretty good idea on what your entire philosophy is based on.

There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You” is as true as the color “Orange”, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….

You've lost me completely. You may be right that it's what my philosophy is based on, it's just that it makes no sense to me at all...

Anyone care to interpret for me?

Hence, the knowledge that it is flawed, could be flawed. No?

A rose is a rose is a rose?

The knowledge that is incomplete could be true.

Hahahahahaa.. :D Such as yourself, right? Well, that does it for me at least; I concede, you do not exist.

Good luck with that theory in practicality. :) If you have to tell yourself that I don't exist, when you see my words, is that really an absence of delusion?

Scott, you know what; taking another look at your post I feel you are right. I really do not understand you, so it must be a lack of understanding on my part. And at times you say you don’t get what I’m saying, so I think it is best we leave this for some other time :)

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You” is as true as the color “Orange”, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….

Now that is definitely a clear elaboration on Dan’s relatively recent declaration that “causality is a fiction.”

I wouldn't call it fiction as such. If one stops at that statement, then that falsifies the reality of reasoning, for that is also causal in nature. The process of causality is a reality, one thing to another. All that has to be seen is that ALTHOUGH things do not inherently exist, they do exactly for the period they seem to be held long enough for relative detection. Our entire world, that is consciousness, depends on it; in fact, it is just that.

BTW, Leyla, is your signature 'There is no God but God' of Islam?

[Leyla Shen]

Aleyküm selam, Sapius:

I will soon discard it as my signature since there is not enough space to allow for proper expression.

la ilahe illallah

[there is] no god, only the absolute

BTW, Leyla, is your signature 'There is no God but God' of Islam?

Yes. I am a radical Muslim fundamentalist.

I think the conception of Muslim fundamentalists as suicidal maniacs is fast becoming nothing more than a useless cliché; a thorn in the side of wisdom designed not for the propagation of truth, but the sustenance of lies.

[Sapius]

Leyla,

Aleyküm selam, Sapius:

Is it 'selam' or ‘salam’? and I have always heard it the other way around though - salam aleykum - peace be unto you. Whereas the Jews simply say 'solom'. Why don't the Christians say something along the same lines? Was there no such salutations in Aramaic? I think 'Aamen' is the only common word used by all three, though it sounds slightly different.

[there is] no god, only the absolute.

I think that is a better word – absolute - instead of God as I have generally heard. But isn’t this your own philosophy dependant interpretation?

In my opinion, most of the religions have a pearl of wisdom to offer.

In Islam, the most brilliant quote by “God” I think is this…

“Whatever you can think or imagine, I’m not that.”

That leaves absolutely no way of describing God. In a way, one can say the same thing for what one calls Tao.

Whatever one can think or imagine, Toa is not that.

[Shahrazad]

“Whatever you can think or imagine, I’m not that.”

Lovely. Is that in the Koran?

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius:

Is it 'selam' or ‘salam’?

Well, we Turks pronounce it “selam” courtesy of Ataturk who developed the latin-based Turkish language.

He also abolished the Dervish brotherhoods (probably because he couldn‘t make a connection between whirling and the absolute without falling over :) ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIQMM8bZQk&NR

…and I have always heard it the other way around though - salam aleykum - peace be unto you.

Aleyküm selam has the same meaning but is the reciprocation to selamün aleyküm. So, when you greet me in this manner ("selamün aleyküm"), I reciprocate with "aleyküm selam."

Whereas the Jews simply say 'solom'.

Many Turks also say, simply, “selam,” which is a colloquialism--like, “Hi.”

Why don't the Christians say something along the same lines? Was there no such salutations in Aramaic?

Because Christians are stupid? :)

I think 'Aamen' is the only common word used by all three, though it sounds slightly different.

Yes. We say “Amin.” This is an interjection, like “wow.” Contrary to “wow,” however, it is used to express approval, often emphatic, rather than surprise/astonishment. Its roots are Semitic (Arameans, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Babylonians, Hebrews, etc.). Not sure when, exactly, the Jew usurped the term. (In the Bible, the Semites are the descendants of Shem.)

[there is] no god, only the absolute.

I think that is a better word – absolute - instead of God as I have generally heard. But isn’t this your own philosophy dependant interpretation?

It seems I am not alone in such an interpretation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHeQroDdCWI

In my opinion, most of the religions have a pearl of wisdom to offer.

In Islam, the most brilliant quote by “God” I think is this…

“Whatever you can think or imagine, I’m not that.”

That leaves absolutely no way of describing God. In a way, one can say the same thing for what one calls Tao.

Whatever one can think or imagine, Toa is not that.

Yes. I myself see many similarities between religious texts. How can one not interpret them contingent to their own philosophy (where they could be considered to be in possession of such a thing as a philosophy, that is)?

[Sapius]

Leyla, Selam, then.

Well, we Turks pronounce it “selam” courtesy of Ataturk who developed the latin-based Turkish language.

My bad. It’s a shame on me that I did not pay much attention to it, I will though next time I visit Istanbul. I still think of it as Constantinople when I visit. Rich history and culture.

Many Turks also say, simply, “selam,” which is a colloquialism--like, “Hi.”

Yeah… I know, so do the Arabs, but I might have causally not paid attention to the ‘e’. There are quite a few Turks all over Germany though, and I might encounter a few in a month or two.

[Sapius]

“Whatever you can think or imagine, I’m not that.”

Lovely. Is that in the Koran?

I had the same question; show me where it is written? And I was shown an English translation of Koran, but I don't know which chapter or verse.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

“Whatever you can think or imagine, I’m not that.”

Lovely. Is that in the Koran?

I had the same question; show me where it is written? And I was shown an English translation of Koran, but I don't know which chapter or verse.

It's not from the Koran, it's probably from the later Hanbali teachings ("Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different from it." - Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

It appears to be based however on the Koran and from the same section as the term 'absolute' has been derived, and also the phrase "Nothing is like Allah.".

Surah 112 (Al-Ikhlas)

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.

Many alternative translations (which are interpretations) around since we're talking about poetry and relies heavily on context and structure in the Arabic original, like:

He is God, One God
the Everlasting Purity
who has not begotten, and has not been begotten
and equal to Him is not any one

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla, Selam, then.

:)

Rich history and culture.

Yes, indeed.

Make sure you pick up some Pişmaniye. Ever had it? If not, it's spun--like fairy floss--helva. Unlike fairy floss, however, its silky to the mouth and disappears without a single trace of sugar; and its not sickly sweet.

Curious. Why, to this day, do you think of Istanbul as Constantinople?

[Sapius]

Diebert: It's not from the Koran, it's probably from the later Hanbali teachings ("Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different from it." - Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

It appears to be based however on the Koran and from the same section as the term 'absolute' has been derived, and also the phrase "Nothing is like Allah."

Thanks, however, I do not think it was “God” who spoke otherwise he would then necessarily be a thing like any other. So be it Ahmed Ibn Hanbal or whoever, the quote itself describes the indescribable in a very simple and logical manner. I try to pay attention to the moon so to speak, not the pointing finger.

Leyla: Make sure you pick up some Pişmaniye. Ever had it? If not, it's spun--like fairy floss--helva. Unlike fairy floss, however, its silky to the mouth and disappears without a single trace of sugar; and its not sickly sweet.

Sounds good... will do. I don't have a sweet tooth though.

Curious. Why, to this day, do you think of Istanbul as Constantinople?

For the same reasons; rich history and culture. Similarly I have been to Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and Persia (now Iran). Any ways, what’s in a name? It’s the legacy that people leave behind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: It's not from the Koran, it's probably from the later Hanbali teachings ("Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different from it." - Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

It appears to be based however on the Koran and from the same section as the term 'absolute' has been derived, and also the phrase "Nothing is like Allah."

Thanks, however, I do not think it was “God” who spoke otherwise he would then necessarily be a thing like any other.

So in your world 'things' do all the speaking? How interesting.

I try to pay attention to the moon so to speak, not the pointing finger.

But your response indicates otherwise. Your question was "show me where it's written" added to Sha's question "is that in the Koran". And you certainly didn't seem to satisfied with the quote on face value not caring where it came from. Can you see the contradictions oozing from your post?

Please note I just gave the information you asked for with some detail I found interesting and would give others perhaps something to delve into if inclined. In that light your response to me shows merely an obsession with fingers pointing to fingers ad nauseam.

[Sapius]

Diebert,

So in your world 'things' do all the speaking? How interesting.

Yes, it may sound interesting, because you are assuming my definition of ‘things’. Any interaction can occur only between a thing to a thing, be it even a thought.

But your response indicates otherwise. Your question was "show me where it's written" added to Sha's question "is that in the Koran". And you certainly didn't seem to satisfied with the quote on face value not caring where it came from. Can you see the contradictions oozing from your post?

You are then welcome to lap it up, or let be. However, it was more than 20 years ago, and I was curious as to see how such a quote could really come from Islam, which generally shows me how the people following the same religion lie flat on their faces in front of a dead dervishes grave, let alone Allah. Iraq, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, India, Malaysia, you name it, except Saudi Arabians and some surrounding countries, all do the same, and call themselves the belivers of the same Allah that is not even subject to imagination.

I was not magically born with all realizations intact; I gathered them piece-by-piece. It is a process.

Please note I just gave the information you asked for with some detail I found interesting and would give others perhaps something to delve into if inclined.

I thank you for that. May be your read hostility in my words, and hence… but that is not the case.

In that light your response to me shows merely an obsession with fingers pointing to fingers ad nauseam.

Under this new light, imagine which finger I am holding up… in jest of course :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I do not think it was “God” who spoke otherwise he would then necessarily be a thing like any other.

So in your world 'things' do all the speaking? How interesting.

Yes, it may sound interesting, because you are assuming my definition of ‘things’. Any interaction can occur only between a thing to a thing, be it even a thought.

You already revealed a definition by saying that if God spoke, he necessarily would be a thing. So all speaking is done by 'things' to you and interactions are always between these things.

But in reality God does all the speaking. It's therefore the listening that must be perfected.

May be your read hostility in my words, and hence… but that is not the case.

Nah, I was just looking for a fight. From which then a point may arise, with some luck.

[Sapius]

Diebert,

Nah, I was just looking for a fight. From which then a point may arise, with some luck.

Heheehehe….

Well, in that case, I'll oblige you with one.. :D

In my world God does all the speaking. It's therefore the listening that must be perfected.

If God does all the speaking, then who or what listens or perfects it? Could that be God too?

[Sapius]

Diebert, what happened here???

In my world God does all the speaking. It's therefore the listening that must be perfected.

But in reality God does all the speaking. It's therefore the listening that must be perfected.

Did you just try to perfect what you were saying earlier?

…and that too not even a post away… hehehhe… Shame on you :D

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius:

Any ways, what’s in a name? It’s the legacy that people leave behind.

What’s in the name “Istanbul”? I would say the people living there now, a part of them being the legacy that has been left behind.

To Diebert, you wrote:

You are then welcome to lap it up, or let be. However, it was more than 20 years ago, and I was curious as to see how such a quote could really come from Islam, which generally shows me how the people following the same religion lie flat on their faces in front of a dead dervishes grave, let alone Allah.

What makes any religious activity religious is the fact that there is no wisdom involved--only ritual. That goes for the perpetual observer, too.

When one observes life without wisdom, his engagement with it is ritualistic--whether or not such an engagement is deemed to be with reason or emotion, mind or body, or any combination.

The only living truth there is, is wisdom--which is distinct since it moves entirely without rite or ritual.