Does it matter or not?

[samadhi]

Okay, the answer is no.

[Shahrazad]

All right, we're getting somewhere now.

One more. Which one of these statements is true:
(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist

[samadhi]

Define God.

[Dan Rowden]

Define "exist".

[Shahrazad]

God: a conscious being that created the universe.

To Exist: to be real.

[David Quinn]

I think you also forgot to answer my questions. They're at the top of this page (7).

sam: If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.

Sher: Can two opposite statements both be true simultaneously? And do you perceive truth as relative?

Here's a simple example:

(1) Tom is taller than Harry.
(2) Tom is not taller than Harry.

Are (1) and (2) both true?

Sher, sorry for not responding. I think your question is taking a literal approach to something metaphorical. Mountain and no mountain is not meant to be taken literally. It is rather a metaphor for what one's life is about.

The mountain/no-mountain/mountain analogy does indeed have a direct and literal meaning. It refers not to coming full-circle, as Sapius or Unidian would have it, but to the living understanding of things just as they are - neither dual nor not-dual, neither consciousness nor not-consciousness, neither real nor illusory. The two mountains on either side of the spectrum are entirely different beasts.

-

[Unidian]

The mountain/no-mountain/mountain analogy does indeed have a direct and literal meaning. It refers not to coming full-circle, as Sapius or Unidian would have it, but to the living understanding of things just as they are - neither dual nor not-dual, neither consciousness nor not-consciousness, neither real nor illusory.

That IS coming full circle. But instead of saying all of those words and concepts for clingy people to get attached to, I just point to the mountain. It is what it is. I have no need to impress people with philosophical expositions, and according to Zen and Taoism I have every reason not to do so if I'm interested in actually showing people anything rather than giving them about 5000 shiny new concepts to latch on to.

[samadhi]

Either way, it's STILL a metaphor!

[Unidian]

Yep. But the less babble you give people to cling to, the better - don't you think?

[Dan Rowden]

Either way, it's STILL a metaphor!

A metaphor for what?

[David Quinn]

The mountain/no-mountain/mountain analogy does indeed have a direct and literal meaning. It refers not to coming full-circle, as Sapius or Unidian would have it, but to the living understanding of things just as they are - neither dual nor not-dual, neither consciousness nor not-consciousness, neither real nor illusory.

That IS coming full circle. But instead of saying all of those words and concepts for clingy people to get attached to, I just point to the mountain. It is what it is. I have no need to impress people with philosophical expositions, and according to Zen and Taoism I have every reason not to do so if I'm interested in actually showing people anything rather than giving them about 5000 shiny new concepts to latch on to.

You mean, like "dialectical monism" and "toilet brush"?

Most people are deeply trapped in delusion, which requires effort on their part to expose and weed out. Simply pointing to a mountain doesn't help them. They will only continue to experience a false mountain of their own creation and still be at the mercy of their own lack of insight and clarity. They need conceptual tools to help them undo the conceptual barriers which entrap them. That is what texts such as the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu's writings are all about.

Good writings provide a few simple clear-cut concepts and reasonings which can be applied to one's spiritual ignorance, eventually to pull it out by the roots. If all you see are "5000 shiny new concepts for people to latch onto", then you are seriously out of touch.

Doing away with the mountain/no mountain/mountain process and simply clinging to the first mountain instead is absurd. I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous proposal. It indicates no understanding of the methods and aims of Zen. It reveals no understanding of the mountain at the end.

-

[Unidian]

That's nice, because I've never proposed that and have said the opposite zillions of times. Concepts are necessary to get away from concepts. But what is the evidence you have used concepts in such a manner, rather than using them to aggrandize yourself as a person of special understanding?

[David Quinn]

DQ: Good writings provide a few simple clear-cut concepts and reasonings which can be applied to one's spiritual ignorance, eventually to pull it out by the roots. If all you see are "5000 shiny new concepts for people to latch onto", then you are seriously out of touch.

Doing away with the mountain/no mountain/mountain process and simply clinging to the first mountain instead is absurd. I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous proposal. It indicates no understanding of the methods and aims of Zen. It reveals no understanding of the mountain at the end.

That's nice, because I've never proposed that and have said the opposite zillions of times. Concepts are necessary to get away from concepts.

Then why did you write the following in the post before:

But instead of saying all of those words and concepts for clingy people to get attached to, I just point to the mountain. It is what it is. I have no need to impress people with philosophical expositions, and according to Zen and Taoism I have every reason not to do so if I'm interested in actually showing people anything rather than giving them about 5000 shiny new concepts to latch on to.

But what is the evidence you have used concepts in such a manner, rather than using them to aggrandize yourself as a person of special understanding?

Evidence of getting away from concepts? I don't even know what that means.

-

[Unidian]

It is a question of whether one habitually runs off at the mouth about their own enlightenment, understanding of reality, sagehood, spiritual advancement, etc. Those who spout such things on a regular basis show little indication of having gotten away from concepts. In fact, to put it in terms you might use, while they may have an "intellectual understanding" of what getting away from concepts means and they may be able to give it plausible-sounding lip service, due to their own attachments and ego dynamics, they haven't actually done it.

I'm going to play Nintendo now with my unenlightened self. Pikachu has some serious killing to do in the Super Smash Brothers arena.

[Sapius]

Sorry, Samadhi, I really forgot about this thread :)

You keep missing my point. Dreaming as consciousness is non-dual. It is ALL CONSCIOUSNESS. Duality arises WITHIN consciousness.

OK… ok… I hear you loud and clear, but do not agree, for even within the within, “I” experience THAT which “I” am AWARE OF, for example the dream and its contents itself, that “I” am conscious of. Otherwise, existence isn’t.

[samadhi]

Sapius,

You'll have to try again. I have no idea what that sentence means.

[Sapius]

Sapius,

You'll have to try again. I have no idea what that sentence means.

Try? Try what, Samadhi? I just don't agree to your reasoning... and I have no desire to convince you of what I think.

How about 'mu' then? Does that help? ;D

[samadhi]

Sapius,

Try? Try what, samadhi? I just don't agree to your reasoning... and I have no desire to convince you of what I think.

Well, you made the statement. Silly me, I assumed you might want to be understood, not necessarily agreed with. Why do you keep implying that our discussion needs to be about agreement?

How about 'mu' then? Does that help?

Much better! lol ...

[Laird]

Sam, a much belated response but better late than never huh? Depending on whether I'm ultimately evicted from this place (which is looking quite likely at this point), this might be the last post that I get to make in this thread - you might get the last word on this one...

samadhi: Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great.

Laird: Is it really great Sam? Or is it deluded?

samadhi: Delusion isn't a bad thing if you are getting what you want. It's just that eventually getting what you want becomes problematic.

Laird: Sounds like a dream come true to me. Even better when everybody gets what they want! Heaven on Earth. :-)

samadhi: Heaven on earth isn't getting what you want, it is wanting what you get.

If I got painful torture and actually wanted it then I would be a sick individual. I don't want to be that individual. But point taken, there's a lot to be said for being satisfied with your lot in life. On the other hand there's a lot to be said for striving for betterment. That's how the world has progressed.

Laird: Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

samadhi: An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

Laird: That you wake up from, Sam. "You". In other words, an individual.

samadhi: No. When you become aware that you are dreaming, it isn't the character that becomes aware. The awareness may be expressed through that character but don't identify the awareness as the character.

Laird: Character, individual - what's the difference? So you identify the awareness as or not as the character - again, what's the difference? In the end, there is a character/individual and that character/individual is aware, and is the only possible subject of enlightenment.

samadhi: When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

That's not my experience. When I become aware that I'm dreaming, I remain the same "character" (i.e. me) in the dream that I originally identified as, I'm just more aware of myself. But even assuming that I accept that in becoming aware of my dreaming I lose my identity with the dream character: I still maintain an identity - my original identity! You just can't escape the self, Sam, much as you and others like mikiel like to fantasise about doing so (or in mikiel's case, about having done so).

samadhi: Anything you don't understand will be seen as senseless. Why not simply withhold judgment on what you don't understand? String theory to me is nonsense. It doesn't mean I go around condemning string theorists.

Laird: The way that I "don't understand" your teachings is the same way in which, as I explained to mikiel in the "Forget about enlightenment" thread, I "don't understand" that the liquid water in my cup could be other than wet. In other words, I understand perfectly well that there is no sense to them.

samadhi: You are equating the self with the body/mind in the way that you equate wetness with liquid. Yet the two are not inseparable. If you were to lose your fingertip, would you have lost a piece of you or of your finger?

I'm equating the self primarily with consciousness, but yes, there is a strong sense in which my body is a part of me. If I were to lose my fingertip, I would have lost both a part of me and a part of my finger. It just happens to not be an essential part of me.

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

samadhi: This is like asking how a dream character could talk about itself if it doesn't really exist. The answer is, very easily.

Laird: Are you talking about yourself as the dream character, or one of the characters that you encounter in a dream. Assuming that you mean the former, even as a dream character, you are still conscious - in other words, you still have a self!

samadhi: In a dream, there is a character that you assume an identity with. When you awaken, you realize there is no such character. It doesn't mean that you as character cannot function within that identity. Being conscious of the character does not require identifying yourself AS the character. In the same way, identification with the body/mind is not required to function as a body/mind.

Your analogy of enlightened no-self realisation with waking up from a dream is fundamentally flawed though, Sam. When you wake up from a dream, you wake up to yourself, whereas you are saying that when you become enlightened you no longer have a self. The two are not compatible: in the case of waking up from the dream the self remains intact, in the case that you wish to posit enlightenment as, the self is no longer present. The "character" in the dream is, in any case, in some sense "you", regardless of whether it possesses different characteristics to your usual personality. It's a flawed analogy, and in my opinion you should drop it.

samadhi: I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

Laird: I never said that an ego can be enlightened either, but if an ego can't, then what can? What else is there?

samadhi: You need to find that out for yourself. What else is there if there is no "I"? But you have to be interested. It isn't an academic question.

Laird: That's all very evasive Sam. A more honest answer would have been "Hmm, you know what, there really isn't anything else, is there?"

samadhi: Again, it's fine if you have no interest in an investigation of who or what you really are. Just don't take your lack of interest as the end of all possible inquiry.

More evasion, Sam. Do you have an answer or not? It seems not. Have you performed this "investigation" and come up with a result yourself or are you just talking out of your hat? Let me remind you of the question: if an ego can't be enlightened, then what can? What else is there?

Laird: Frankly, I'm not interested, because the premise (that the self does not exist) is patently irrational. If you can't answer it as an academic question then I have to call "sham" on you.

samadhi: Lol, clever. No, I'm afraid there is no academic answer to the question of who you are. Putting a label on it leaves you exactly where you are now. No concept is a substitute for realization. If I were to tell you how wonderful it is to be wealthy, could you use my concepts to meet all your needs?

A realisation is intellectual, and can be described. There must therefore be an academic answer to the question of what the self is.

samadhi: Actually, your paradox seems to introduce clinging as acceptable which is the problem you are having right now. You think you must have a fundamental belief system, a belief in the self, and you cling to that. What if you fundamental belief system wasn't about clinging but simply, "look and see"? Is there a self? Even if the answer for you is yes, you cannot say what others will see. Everyone gets to look for themselves.

Laird: Ah, so I have a problem do I? I thought that all spiritual paths were fine in your eyes, but now it seems that mine is not so fine after all.

samadhi: The problem is with trying to understand non-duality in terms of a body/mind identity that you cling to. You are banging your head against a wall. Logic and duality cannot take you to non-duality. And it may not be a problem depending on what you want. Only you can say.

So if logic and duality cannot take me to non-duality, then what can? Introspection? Self-reflection? Note the "self" in self-reflection too please.

Laird: As for whether anyone else has a self, I can only speculate of course, but given the remarkable similarities in all other respects between me and other human beings I find it hard to imagine that it would be any different for any of you guys in respect of having a self.

samadhi: Mikiel has told you that it is indeed different. You simply want to deny his experience because it isn't yours and you can't understand it.

The only way that I can see that mikiel could not have a self is if he is under the direct control of some other consciousness such that his body/mind are but an empty roboticised shell, but even this entails a self - the self of the consciousness that now controls "him".

samadhi: With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

Laird: Enlighten me mate.

samadhi: Not doing is about the absence of a doer, not indolence.

Laird: Yeah, um, but how does the absence of a doer leave nothing undone?

samadhi: When there is no doer, how can anything be left undone?

When there is no doer, nothing is done, and everything is left undone.

Or when there is no doer, all doing flows from the source and thus anything that needs doing is invariably done.

If "doing flows from the source" then who is the source? Why, the "doer" of course. So you contradict yourself in saying that there is no doer and then talking about a source of doing.

samadhi: Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

Laird: The basis on which I say that the idea of no-self is nonsense is that it's in my current opinion impossible to be conscious without having a self. Yes, I believe that a self is reflected in the body/mind, but I have only explicitly said so once that I recall. I haven't "always come back" to that idea.

samadhi: But you just came back to it! Why do you want tiptoe around it when it is in fact what you believe?!

Laird: Well it's not entirely what I believe. As I wrote in an earlier post, I'm open to the possibility of a soul, which would be even more personal than a body/mind, and I'm open to the possibility of a spiritually layered self where there are other aspects to the self that go beyond mere body/mind.

samadhi: I'm sure there are many layers to the self beyond the body/mind. It's not so hard to imagine it as infinite. Whatever guise happens to fascinate you, you get to play with as long as you want.

Right, so you're accepting my explanation of what the self is then. So then there is a self after all and your "no-self" philosophy falls apart.

Laird: Anyway, it's not about tiptoeing around it, it's about me objecting to you claiming that I "keep coming back to" the idea of self as body/mind when I've actually barely mentioned it.

samadhi: The body/mind is what you perceive and thus identify as you. All guises work the same way, whatever their qualities may be.

What is there beyond the guise? And don't come back at me with "that's what you have to work out for yourself". I want to know what you have worked out.

Laird: Erm, no, actually it doesn't. I'm conscious ergo I have a self. There's no way around that. I might not know exactly what that self is, but that it exists in some form is undeniable.

samadhi: Let's see, you don't know what it is but you insist you have it, I am getting that right? If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly know whether you have one or not?

Laird: I don't know how my eye works but I know that I can see ergo I have a seeing organ (an eye). Just like I don't entirely know what my self is but I am self-aware, ergo I have a self.

samadhi: You are aware that you are, but what you are is another question. You don't require a self to be but you need a self to be SOMETHING.

I really can't get around the fact that you use words that clearly convey a self - words like "you" - and then on the other hand deny that the self is a requirement. These words exist because the self is required.

samadhi: What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

Laird: Um, no dude. It's more than just an image. It is an image too, but it's more than just an image.

samadhi: Well, I'm waiting to hear what that might be. You keep telling me you have a self but when I ask what that self is, you never have an answer.

Dude, I gave you an answer several many posts back. Here it is again for your reference:

I have a pretty conventional understanding of what I am, and that includes the possibility that I have a soul, and I don't see any reason to doubt or to challenge my understanding. It's tricky to express clearly, but roughly speaking I am an agglomeration of parts and processes roughly bounded by my skin, and there are parts that are more "me" than others - in particular my mind is more "me" than my body, and if my soul is a reality then it would be more "me" than my mind.

[samadhi]

Laird,

Sam, a much belated response but better late than never huh? Depending on whether I'm ultimately evicted from this place (which is looking quite likely at this point), this might be the last post that I get to make in this thread - you might get the last word on this one...

Laird, I've had a good time talking with you about enlightenment. It seems odd to me how one like yourself who actually inquires is getting the boot. An interest in enlightenment apparently is not enough to gain any station on an enlightenment board. Even here, the ego reigns supreme. Although that really is no surprise. You will be missed, my friend, for sure.

samadhi: Heaven on earth isn't getting what you want, it is wanting what you get.

Laird: If I got painful torture and actually wanted it then I would be a sick individual. I don't want to be that individual. But point taken, there's a lot to be said for being satisfied with your lot in life. On the other hand there's a lot to be said for striving for betterment. That's how the world has progressed.

No one is saying not to strive. Strive all you want. Progress all you want. Whatever is working for you, that's what you'll do.

samadhi: When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

Laird: That's not my experience. When I become aware that I'm dreaming, I remain the same "character" (i.e. me) in the dream that I originally identified as, I'm just more aware of myself.

Isn't that what I just said?

But even assuming that I accept that in becoming aware of my dreaming I lose my identity with the dream character: I still maintain an identity - my original identity! You just can't escape the self, Sam, much as you and others like mikiel like to fantasise about doing so (or in mikiel's case, about having done so).

How can you say you are maintaining your identity when it is no longer in the character? You seem to think I'm saying you will disappear. No, it is the IDENTITY that disappears.

samadhi: You are equating the self with the body/mind in the way that you equate wetness with liquid. Yet the two are not inseparable. If you were to lose your fingertip, would you have lost a piece of you or of your finger?

Laird: I'm equating the self primarily with consciousness ...

With consciousness or the thinking process?

... but yes, there is a strong sense in which my body is a part of me. If I were to lose my fingertip, I would have lost both a part of me and a part of my finger. It just happens to not be an essential part of me.

It's perfectly understandable. You are not "wrong" to identify with the body. If that is where your identity is and you are not interested in questioning it, great, you got your identity. Does it mean that you can complain to me when I say, there may be something more going on than the body/mind? I don't see that. Identity is not so immutable. Your identity isn't mine and to complain that you don't understand mine is only saying that you are happy with yours and I should be happy with yours. But it doesn't work that way, does it?

samadhi: In a dream, there is a character that you assume an identity with. When you awaken, you realize there is no such character. It doesn't mean that you as character cannot function within that identity. Being conscious of the character does not require identifying yourself AS the character. In the same way, identification with the body/mind is not required to function as a body/mind.

Laird: Your analogy of enlightened no-self realisation with waking up from a dream is fundamentally flawed though, Sam. When you wake up from a dream, you wake up to yourself ...

Have you ever had a dream of false awakening? You wake up to a self but what self are you waking up to? Can you really say you are awake now?

... whereas you are saying that when you become enlightened you no longer have a self.

Self is referring to an identity which points to some object. There is no self in that sense; that doesn't mean the only alternative is non-existence.

The two are not compatible: in the case of waking up from the dream the self remains intact, in the case that you wish to posit enlightenment as, the self is no longer present. The "character" in the dream is, in any case, in some sense "you", regardless of whether it possesses different characteristics to your usual personality. It's a flawed analogy, and in my opinion you should drop it.

The analogy points to the fact that identity is fluid. You inhabit one identity only to find another behind it. You want to call this identity "real" and the others "just a dream." I'm am just pointing out that maybe there is less to identity than you think. Dreaming makes this clear.

samadhi: Again, it's fine if you have no interest in an investigation of who or what you really are. Just don't take your lack of interest as the end of all possible inquiry.

Laird: More evasion, Sam. Do you have an answer or not? It seems not. Have you performed this "investigation" and come up with a result yourself or are you just talking out of your hat? Let me remind you of the question: if an ego can't be enlightened, then what can? What else is there?

My putting a concept on it won't help you. The logical mind demands an answer. What am I if I am not this body or mind? No matter what I say to that, you would simply raise an eyebrow and look askance. As well you should. There is nothing for me to show you, quite literally. The mind balks at nothing. "Nothing? You got to give me something!" Your own realization is what you are really demanding from me and I can't give that to you. No one can. That's actually a good thing. It means you don't need to depend on me, to believe me, to trust me, to follow me. It's all in your hands, not in mine.

Laird: Frankly, I'm not interested, because the premise (that the self does not exist) is patently irrational. If you can't answer it as an academic question then I have to call "sham" on you.

samadhi: Lol, clever. No, I'm afraid there is no academic answer to the question of who you are. Putting a label on it leaves you exactly where you are now. No concept is a substitute for realization. If I were to tell you how wonderful it is to be wealthy, could you use my concepts to meet all your needs?

Laird: A realisation is intellectual, and can be described. There must therefore be an academic answer to the question of what the self is.

There is nothing Laird, literally nothing. Does that help? Lol, I didn't think so.

samadhi: The problem is with trying to understand non-duality in terms of a body/mind identity that you cling to. You are banging your head against a wall. Logic and duality cannot take you to non-duality. And it may not be a problem depending on what you want. Only you can say.

Laird: So if logic and duality cannot take me to non-duality, then what can? Introspection? Self-reflection? Note the "self" in self-reflection too please.

Well, first, are you interested? Start there. If the answer is no, you've just saved yourself a lot of trouble! Lol. If the answer is yes, then tell me, what about non-duality interests you?

Laird: As for whether anyone else has a self, I can only speculate of course, but given the remarkable similarities in all other respects between me and other human beings I find it hard to imagine that it would be any different for any of you guys in respect of having a self.

samadhi: Mikiel has told you that it is indeed different. You simply want to deny his experience because it isn't yours and you can't understand it.

Laird: The only way that I can see that mikiel could not have a self is if he is under the direct control of some other consciousness such that his body/mind are but an empty roboticised shell, but even this entails a self - the self of the consciousness that now controls "him".

Okay, you can question him about it.

samadhi: Not doing is about the absence of a doer, not indolence.

Laird: Yeah, um, but how does the absence of a doer leave nothing undone?

samadhi: When there is no doer, how can anything be left undone?

Laird: When there is no doer, nothing is done, and everything is left undone.

On the contrary, nature functions perfectly fine with no doer. Is there anything more perfect than nature?

samadhi: Or when there is no doer, all doing flows from the source and thus anything that needs doing is invariably done.

Laird: If "doing flows from the source" then who is the source? Why, the "doer" of course. So you contradict yourself in saying that there is no doer and then talking about a source of doing.

The source doesn't seem to be saying anything about being a doer, that would be you saying that. So it would be you do the contradicting, wouldn't it?

samadhi: I'm sure there are many layers to the self beyond the body/mind. It's not so hard to imagine it as infinite. Whatever guise happens to fascinate you, you get to play with as long as you want.

Laird: Right, so you're accepting my explanation of what the self is then. So then there is a self after all and your "no-self" philosophy falls apart.

You can identify with anything. That doesn't make it a permanent self. There is only what you are choosing to identify with. If you have your identity and you like it, great, identify all you want. "No-self" is not for everyone, but if you are interested, maybe it is for you.

Laird: Anyway, it's not about tiptoeing around it, it's about me objecting to you claiming that I "keep coming back to" the idea of self as body/mind when I've actually barely mentioned it.

samadhi: The body/mind is what you perceive and thus identify as you. All guises work the same way, whatever their qualities may be.

Laird: What is there beyond the guise? And don't come back at me with "that's what you have to work out for yourself". I want to know what you have worked out.

See above.

samadhi: You are aware that you are, but what you are is another question. You don't require a self to be but you need a self to be SOMETHING.

Laird: I really can't get around the fact that you use words that clearly convey a self - words like "you" - and then on the other hand deny that the self is a requirement. These words exist because the self is required.

Well, I use words as they are conventionally understood. Writing in the passive voice all the time would be cumbersome and probably wouldn't convey the point any better.

samadhi: What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

Laird: Um, no dude. It's more than just an image. It is an image too, but it's more than just an image.

samadhi: Well, I'm waiting to hear what that might be. You keep telling me you have a self but when I ask what that self is, you never have an answer.

Dude, I gave you an answer several many posts back. Here it is again for your reference: I have a pretty conventional understanding of what I am, and that includes the possibility that I have a soul, and I don't see any reason to doubt or to challenge my understanding. It's tricky to express clearly, but roughly speaking I am an agglomeration of parts and processes roughly bounded by my skin, and there are parts that are more "me" than others - in particular my mind is more "me" than my body, and if my soul is a reality then it would be more "me" than my mind.

Again, you are giving me an image while insisting, no, it's more than an image. So tell me how it's more than an image?

[Kevin Solway]

The following text is is copied from the old servers
-------------------------------------------------------

BGen
Post subject: Re: Does it matter or not?Posted: 23 Mar 2008 04:18 am


Laird wrote:

...So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one, or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

Who is the Creator?
Creator is a collective, special Force that monitors the whole system of creation. That Force is one and unique. In Kabbalah there is but one primary law - the law of creation, which is to delight the creatures in any way the creatures can be delighted. All other laws stem from that one law, and everything that happens does so in the carrying out of that law. Everything that happens at any given moment in creation, its sole purpose is to take people come to the pointof utter bliss - to be filled with the Light of the Creator.
The Creator acts much like gravity: in the center of creation is the Creator. The souls were distanced five worlds away from Him. We live in the last one, called "our world". From that point Creator pulls us toward Him.
We sense that pull as pain - beginning with disease and ending in painful death. But if we make an effort to approach the Creator by cooperating with that Force, we will nor feel the pain. Instead, we will feel that Force as good. If, however, we refuse to, we will feel any troubles to the same extent that we resist. The Creator created us through His wish to give, to bestow. He created our will to receive exactly in the amount that He wanted to give. That why we must attain everything that He wants to give us eternity, strength, perfection, total control. This means we must assume all the duties of the Creator.
The primery law of creation is the singularity of the Creator-the one and only power that controls everything."There is none beside Him".
The second law of creation is that the Creator is totally benevolent. We cannot settle the contradiction between these two laws as they appear in our conception of reality.
To Kabbalists, this is not an"idea", but a fact they discover within their sansation of the Creator. People cannot begin to understand how there could have been a holocaust if there is a Creator, because they do not feel Him!!! In fact, the benevolence of the Creator appears only in our corrected desires.
If we are not corrected, then to the extent of the corruption to the Light, we will feel the opposite of the goodness of the Creator, feelings torment instead of happiness.
__________________________________________________________
All changes are only in the perceivers. B.Ashlag
_________________________________________
http://www.kabbalah.info/